MASTER 
NEGATIVE 

NO.  95-82422 


COPYRIGHT  STATEMENT 


The  copyright  law  of  the  United  States  (Title  17,  United  States  Code) 
governs  the  making  of  photocopies  or  other  reproductions  of  copyrighted 
materials  including  foreign  works  under  certain  conditions.  In  addition, 
the  United  States  extends  protection  to  foreign  works  by  means  of 
various  international  conventions,  bilateral  agreements,  and 
proclamations. 

Under  certain  conditions  specified  in  the  law,  libraries  and  archives  are 
authorized  to  furnish  a  photocopy  or  other  reproduction.  One  of  these 
specified  conditions  is  that  the  photocopy  or  reproduction  is  not  to  be 
"used  for  any  purpose  other  than  private  study,  scholarship,  or  research." 
If  a  user  makes  a  request  for,  or  ater  uses,  a  photocopy  or  reproduction 
for  purposes  in  excess  of  "fair  use,"  that  user  may  be  liable  for  copyright 
infringement. 

The  Columbia  University  Libraries  reserve  the  right  to  refuse  to  accept  a 
copying  order  if,  in  its  judgement,  fulfillment  of  the  order  would  involve 
violation  of  the  copyright  law. 


Author: 


National  Association  of 

Wool  Manufacturers 

Title: 

Arguments  against  the 
Capper  bill  S.799 

Place: 

[Boston] 

Date: 

[1921] 


Q6  -fiZ4?,7  -  \ 

MASTER   NEGATIVE   * 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 
PRESERVATION  DIVISION 

BIBLIOGRAPHIC  MICROFORM  TARGET 


ORIGINAL  MATERIAL  AS  FILMED  -    EXISTING  BIBLIOGRAPHIC  RECORD 


mmmmm 


BUSTT^rpsa 

S60 
N21 


t 


/• 


Hatioiial  association  of  wool  mahufaotiirers* 

Argumente  against  the  Uapper  bill  S.799,  pre- 
sented to  the  sub- committee  of  the  Committee  on 
Interstate  commerce  of  the  United  States  Senate 
at  hearings  beginning  June  1*  ISSI^  by  the 
National  association  of  wool  manufacturers* 
^Boston,  1921^ 
23  p*   2^  cm* 


o 


RESTRICTIONS  ON  USE: 


TECHNICAL  MICROFORM  DATA 


RLM  SIZE: 


.     35 


n\tr\ 


DATE  FILMED: 


TRACKING  #  : 


REDUCTION  RATIO; 


I2x 


IMAGE  PLACEMENT:  lA 


© 


IB      IIB 


?>|2o|qS- 


INITIALS: 


Waa) 


/hik  cu^s 


FILMED  BY  PRESERVATION  RESOURCES.  BETHLEHEM.  PA. 


4t, 


Ax 


<v? 


^'ir^ 


3 
3 


> 

o  m 
Q.~n 

CD  O 


OQ 


o 
o 


< 

N 


.-v^ 


8 

o 
3 


> 


IN 

o 

3 

3 


^^ 


> 
en 


A' 


kxT 


•v? 


%f^ 


s 

3 
3 


Oi 


O 


FF 


a- 


s  ig 


ro 
bo 


ro 


1.0  mm 


1.5  mm 


2.0  mm 


ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ 
abcdefghr|klmnopqrstuvwxyz  1234567890 


ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ 
abcdefghijklmnopqri,tuvwxyzl234567890 


ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ 

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz 

1234567890 


2.5  mm 


ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ 

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz 

1234567890 


V 


<^ 


^ 


'Si 


^ 


■i> 


4> 


^* 


f^ 


^^ 


A 


■-*>>. 


€ 


^^2-^ 


^ 


•/^ 


4^ 


^^ 


t^. 


^« 


.V' 


*v  ^. 


<^ 


•?r 


^ 


^S 


& 


fcP 


f^ 


o 
o 

Ti  ni  Ti 

>  C  CO 
X  TJ  ^ 

0</)      2 


> 
30 

O 

3 


/^. 


■^^ 

^^>^. 


# 


'/M^ 


€ 


4^ 


4^ 


.****A<> 


•-•■ 

IN3 

to 

CJI 

O 

CJI 

E 

3 
3 

i 

a- 


IS 

3  — 

Si 
1° 

<<  » 

^1 

o»x 


8 


IS 


3  ^ 


•^  C/J 
CBIM 

8 


o. 


< 
^1 


:<^. 


/^ 


■ji>t 


^JlGULlEII^rS  AGAINST 


TIIE  CAiPEII  BI^L       S.    799 


Columbia  ^mbetstttp 

intlieCttpof^etol^Drfe 


LIBRARY 


School  of  Business 


X 


I 


"> 


r=S£HQ^=^= 


^^Osii^r-. 


ARGUMENTS  AGAINST 

THE  CAPPER  BILL 

SCHOOL  OF  BUSINE 

PRESENTED  TO  THE  SUB-COMMITTEE 
OF  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  INTER- 
STATE COMMERCE  OF 
THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE  AT 
HEARINGS  BEGINNING 
JUNE  1,  1921 


•  • 


By 

THE  NATIONAL  ASSOCIATION 
OF  WOOL  MANUFACTURERS 


i,   :* 


I 


;  l|''': ' 


Ci*'K 


I 


># 


ARGUMENTS  AGAINST 

THE  CAPPER  BILL  S.  799 

PRESENTED  TO  THE  SUB-COMMITTEE 

OF  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  INTERSTATE  COMMERCE 

OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE 

AT  HEARINGS  BEGINNING 

JUNE  1,  1921 

By 

THE  NATIONAL  ASSOCIATION  OF 
WOOL  MANUFACTURERS 


h 


1^  Vo    ARGUMENTS  AGAINST  THE  CAPPER  BILL  S.  799, 


MN^ 


^1.^ 


^'w  «P 


Mil 


The  arguments  against  the  compulsory  branding  of  wool 
fabrics  as  prescribed  and  which  are  discussed  in  detail  in  the 
following  statements  are: 


1. 


2. 


3. 


The  proposed  plan  sets  up  false  and  misleading 
standards  for  judging  qualities  of  fabrics. 

Branding  as  proposed  will  add  to  the  producing  and 
distributing  costs  of  wool  fabrics. 

The  protection  of  the  pubUc  against  misleading 
statements  about  wool  fabrics  cannot  be  secured 
by  this  law  but  can  be  secured  by  the  passage  of 
another  measure  now  pending  in  Congress. 


ARGUMENTS  AGAINST  THE  CAPPER  BILL  S.  799. 

I.    The  proposed  bill  sets  up  false  standards  for  judging  qualities 
of  fabrics. 

1.  There  is  much  confusion  concerning  what  is  called 
the  consumer's  ''right  to  know"  what  he  wants  to  know  about 
the  goods  he  purchases.  Whether  there  is  such  a  ''right"  and 
the  nature  and  limits  of  it  if  it  exists,  are  complex  legal 
questions.  The  right  certainly  is  not  equally  apparent 
or  imperative  under  all  conditions.  The  proposed  plan  for  the 
compulsory  branding  of  wool  textiles  so  as  to  give  specified 
information  about  their  fiber  content  is  on  an  entirely  different 
footing  from  the  hallmarking  of  silver  or  the  labeUng  of  drugs, 
because  the  brands  stipulated  give  no  information  related 
to  those  qualities  of  the  fabric  which  determine  its  value. 
Whether  or  not  there  is  any  "right  to  know,"  at  least  it  may 
be  questioned  whether  any  group  of  consumers  possesses 
the  right  to  impose  on  an  entire  industry  and  trade  the  in- 
convenience, and  on  a  whole  -group  of  consumers  the  added 
cost,  of  compulsory  branding  to  bring  out  certain  immaterial 
facts,  no  matter  how  interesting  those  facts  may  be  to  the 


H 


ii 


agitating  group.  The  "right *'  involved  in  such  a  case  is  not 
the  ''right  to  know"  but  the  "right"  to  compel  the  giving 
of  information  which  is  no  sure  guide  to  quaUty  and  which, 
by  its  nature,  may  be  misleading. 

2.  Suppose  we  concede  the  "right"  of  the  consumer  to 
perfect  and  complete  knowledge  about  everything  he  buys. 
The  existence  of  such  a  "right"  would  not  justify  compulsory 
branding  of  any  article  with  incomplete  and  misleading  in- 
formation having  no  relation  to  the  intrinsic  properties  of  the 
purchase.  This  is  precisely  what  the  Capper  bill  makes 
obHgatory.  It  is  not  a  matter  of  opinion  but  of  recognized 
fact  that  some  reworked  wool  is  better  thun  some  new  wool. 
The  compulsory  branding  of  all  fabrics  would  create  the  im- 
pression with  respect  to  those  made  of  inferior  new  wool 
fiber  that  their  fiber  content  was  of  high  grade  when  it  might 
not  be — as  when  all  fabrics  of  new  wool  would  be  given  a 
hundred  per  cent,  virgin  wool  brand.  This  would  be  unfair 
to  the  consumer.  It  would  be  equally  unfair,  on  the  other 
hand,  to  make  compulsory  a  branding  of  other  fabrics  in  such 
a  way  as  to  foster  public  prejudice  against  them,  as  would 
be  the  case  when  a  fine  broadcloth  would  be  marked  to  show 
the  amount  of  reworked  stock  used  in  making  it  even  though 
that  stock  might  be  of  superior  quality.  Both  of  these  mis- 
representations would  be  made  not  merely  possible  but  com- 
pulsory by  any  bill  compeUing  the  branding  of  fiber  con- 
tent alone. 

3.  So  far  as  the  distinction  between  wool  and  other 
fibers  is  concerned,  the  public  is  adequately  protected.  This 
is  a  useful  distinction  because  wool  and  vegetable  fibers  have 
different  physical  properties.  Wool  fabric  manufacturers  of 
standing  never  are  guilty  of  that  form  of  fraud  which  calls  a 
fabric  "all  wool"  if  it  contains  anything  except  wool  fiber. 
Simple  tests  make  this  form  of  fraud  easy  to  detect.  This 
term  protects  the  pubUc  against  the  presence  of  vegetable 
fibers. 

4.  Any  special  designation  of  these  animal  fibers  to 
show  whether  or  not  they  had  previously  been  spun  or  woven 
would  give  the  pubUc  no  useful  information  as  to  the  inherent 


'-^■t 


J*'-*!  a-^ 


properties  of  the  cloth.  If  any  wool  manufacturer  beheves 
it  to  be  to  his  advantage,  or  that  of  his  customers,  to  give 
such  information,  that  is  his  privilege.  This  bill  makes  it 
obHgatory  on  all.  The  distinction  between  new  wool  and 
reworked  wool  is  not  a  distinction  based  on  quaHties  or 
properties  but  on  the  previous  history  of  the  fiber  in  use. 
It  is  our  purpose  to  show  that  this  distinction  at  best  is 
valueless  and  at  worst  may  be  seriously  misleading.  To 
make  indication  of  it  obHgatory  would  result  in  costly  decep- 
tion of  the  fabric-buying  public. 

5.    This  plan  for  protecting  the  public  by  distinguishing 
between  new  and  reworked  wool  might  be  of  value  if  it  were 
true  that  even  the  poorest  of  new  or  virgin  wool  is  a  better 
material  for  making  wearing  apparel  than  any  reworked  wool, 
or  "shoddy,"  even  the  best  of  it.    This  is  not  true.    Much 
reworked  wool  is  a  better  textile  material  than  are  many 
types  of  virgin  wool.    This  is  a  fact  capable  of  simple  demon- 
stration.   Any  system  of  branding  which  is  based  on  a  clas- 
sification of  fabrics  taking  nothing  into  consideration  except 
their  fibre  content  is  certain  to  be  misleading  since  the  pres- 
ence, absence,  or  proportion  of  new  wool  or  any  other  fiber 
is  no  fair  measure  of  the  value  of  the  fabric.    Such  a  system 
of  branding,  if  adopted  voluntarily  or  in  individual  cases, 
would  be  open  to  suspicion  as  misleading.    To  force  it  on  all 
wool  goods  would  fix  a  stigma  on  all  reworked  wool  and  put  a 
premium  on  all  new  wool,  regardless  of  the  qualities  of  either. 
Instead  of  protecting  the  consumer  in  selecting  fabrics,  it 
would  add  to  his  difficulties.    Many  other  facts  must  accom- 
pany this  knowledge  to  make  it  significant,  such  as  the  number 
of  threads  to  the  inch,  the  yarn  specifications,  and  the  nature 
of  the  weave  or  finish.    Any  one  of  these  items  of  knowledge 
would  be  quite  as  good  a  measure  of  the   quality   of  the 
fabric  as  the  nature  of  the  fiber  it  contains.     The  truth  is 
that  all  these  items,  besides  the  intrinsic  properties  of  the 
cloth,  are  taken  into  consideration  by  those  skilled  buyers 
who  serve  between  the  manufacturer  and  the  consuming 
public.    But  knowledge  on  any  one  or  all  these  points  together 
would  constitute,  in  the  hands  of  the  public,  a  hindrance  to 
honest   business,   no  safeguard   against   fraud,   and   a  rich 


I* 


6 


opportunity  for  deception.    The  standard  for  judging  fabrics 
which  it  sets  up  is  a  misleading  one. 

6.  Such  a  bill  as  is  proposed  could  not  have  the  effect 
claimed  for  it  of  * 'letting  wool  and  shoddy  each  stand  on  its 
own  merits."  The  enforced  indication  of  the  percentages  of 
new  as  against  reworked  wool  and  other  material  in  the 
fabric  would  be  quite  as  misleading  in  many  cases  as  the 
expressed  or  implied  misrepresentations  which  this  marking 
is  designed  to  prevent.  There  is  a  public  prejudice  in  favor 
of  new  wool  regardless  of  quality  and  against  reworked  wool, 
whether  good  or  bad.  Poor  fabrics  of  new  wool  would  be  so 
branded  as  to  augment  their  real  value.  Good  fabrics  con- 
taining reworked  wool  would  be  at  a  discount.  In  either  case 
public  prejudice  would  be  capitalized.  The  consumer  would 
lose  in  the  first  case  by  a  less  return  for  his  money;  in  the 
second,  by  the  withdrawal  from  the  market  of  many  cheap 
fabrics  of  good  quaUty. 

7.  To  be  of  value  to  purchasers,  any  standard  for 
judging  quality  in  accordance  with  which  it  is  obligatory  to 
mark  goods  must  have  a  direct  relation  to  the  properties 
sought  by  the  buyer.  Fabrics  (and  the  clothing  made  from 
them)  are  bought  on  the  basis  of  their  appearance,  warmth, 
and  wearing  qualities  with  a  definite  relation  to  the  price 
charged.  No  reasonable  person  expects  to  get  for  $17.50  a 
suit  of  clothes  with  all  of  the  same  properties  he  would  expect 
in  a  suit  for  which  he  paid  $75.  It  is  not  his  desire  that  he 
should.  His  concern  is  that  the  suit  he  buys  at  $17.50  shall 
be  of  as  pleasing  an  appearance,  as  great  warmth,  and  as 
great  durabiUty  as  can  be  obtained  for  that  price.  The  lack 
of  brands  showing  fiber  content  does  not  faciUtate  the  sale  of 
fabrics  at  more  than  their  market  value,  nor  would  the  pres- 
ence of  such  brands  make  it  more  difficult  to  deceive  pur- 
chasers. A  knowledge  of  the  percentage  of  the  component 
materials  could  have  no  value  to  the  buyer  unless  this  know- 
ledge enabled  him  better  to  know  what  to  expect  in  the  way 
of  desired  qualities.  This  the  proposed  marking  of  fabrics 
would  not  do,  for  these  quaUties  depend  far  more  on  the  way 
the  materials  are  handled  in  manufacture  than  they  do  on 
the  precise  nature  of  the  materials  themselves. 


^^^^ 


pM 


8.  The  use  of  other  fibers  in  connection  with  wool  is 
necessary  and  has  a  legitimate  place  in  the  wool  manufacture. 
This  point  manifestly  is  not  open  for  discussion.  The  point 
raised  by  this  bill  is  whether  the  use  of  material  other  than 
new  wool  should  be  indicated.  This  clearly  depends  on 
whether  the  chance  of  the  public's  being  deceived  or  cheated 
is  greater  with  or  without  such  indication.  This  can  only  be 
determined  as  a  result  of  weighing  the  facts  of  the  case.  Un- 
hke  food,  a  fabric  of  any  quality  may  be  worth  what  is  charged 
for  it.  An  egg,  for  example,  as  a  food,  is  either  wholesome  or  it 
is  injurious.  A  fiber  on  the  contrary  may  still  be  worth  a  price 
even  if  it  is  inferior  in  quaUty.  The  best  of  new  wools  go  into 
high  priced  fabrics.  But  there  is  also  a  demand  for  low  priced, 
and  medium  priced  fabrics.  These  cannot  be  made  of  ex- 
pensive wools;  they  must  be  made  of  cheap  wools  or  of 
substitutes.  Hence  there  is  a  market  for  even  poor  wools  at 
some  price.  The  selection  of  a  substitute  to  be  used  for  new 
wool  is  the  result  of  two  factors — ^the  intrinsic  properties  of  the 
substitute  and  its  price  as  compared  with  wool.  Of  all  sub- 
stitutes for  new  wool,  that  having  the  closest  resemblance 
in  all  essential  properties  is  high  grade  reworked  wool.  This, 
of  course,  is  wool,  and  the  only  mark  of  inferiority  is  the  fact 
that  it  has  been  used  before.  The  extent  to  which  reworked 
wool  is  used  in  the  wool  manufacture  of  England  and  the 
United  States  is  shown  by  figures  attached.  In  brief,  the 
facts  are  that  in  England,  in  normal  times,  about  a  quarter 
of  the  fiber  used  in  producing  all  wool  fabrics  is  reworked 
wool,  and  in  this  country  the  percentage  is  less.  By  the  cen- 
sus of  1914  the  total  of  reworked  wool  used  in  the  American 
woolen  and  worsted  industries  was  86,000,000  pounds  as 
compared  with  434,000,000  pounds  of  new  wool.  It  is  clear 
that  a  material  used  on  such  a  scale  must  have  a  legitimate 
place  in  the  industry,  and  that  instead  of  being  an  adulterant 
in  the  ordinary  sense,  reworked  wool  is  a  supplement  to  the 
new  wool  stock.  It  would  tell  the  consumer  nothing  of  value 
to  indicate  to  him,  regardless  of  quality,  the  percentages  of 
various  kinds  of  new  or  reworked  fiber  stock.  On  the  con- 
trary, his  judgment  would  be  distorted,  and  the  manufac- 
turer would  be  unfairly  penalized  for  using  many  excellent 
materials  of  low  price. 


It 

i! 


\i 


I 


8 


9.  Reworked  wool  is  not,  as  sometimes  popularly  be- 
lieved, a  foreign  or  necessarily  inferior  material,  fraudulently 
smuggled  into  fabrics  to  the  detriment  of  the  purchaser.  It 
is  wool  which  has  been  used  previously  in  manufacture  and 
instead  of  being  thrown  away  is  reworked  into  the  new  fabric. 
Wool,  intended  by  nature  to  protect  the  animal  for  its  life- 
time, is  practically  indestructible  except  by  fire  and  moth. 
To  scrap  all  the  wool  which  has  once  been  made  up  into 
cloth  because  it  is  in  the  form  of  clippings  too  small  for  gar- 
ments, or  because  it  forms  part  of  a  garment  which  is  worn 
out  in  places  or  is  out  of  style,  obviously  would  entail  a 
tremendous  waste  and  greatly  increase  the  cost  of  clothing 
and  other  woolen  goods.  To  avoid  this  waste  inventors  and 
manufacturers  for  many  years  have  striven  to  design  machines 
and  originate  processes  by  which  this  woolen  material  may  be 
effectively  saved  and  woven  into  new  fabrics  which  can  be 
sold  at  a  much  lower  price  than  similar  fabrics  of  new  wool. 
The  author  of  a  special  report  on  the  shoddy  industry  of 
France  and  England,  published  by  the  Department  of  Com^ 
merce  a  few  years  ago,  has  the  following  to  say  about  the  use 
of  reworked  wool  fiber : 

"A  hundred  years  ago  wool  waste  and  old  rags  were  dis- 
posed of  by  burning  or  by  being  used  as  fertilizers,  but  they 
now  enter  largely  into  the  clothing  requirements  of  the 
world,  and  by  their  cheapening  effect  have  done  much  to 
popularize  woolen  clothing  for  the  masses.  The  increasing 
use  of  waste  materials  and  of  by-products  of  manufacture  is  a 
.sign  of  the  increasing  economic  efficiency  of  mankind,  and  as 
the  world  is  rapidly  becoming  more  and  more  crowded  the 
economic  use  and  re-use  of  all  available  fibers  will  become  of 
more  and  more  importance.' 


»» 


10.  Reworked  wool  fiber  is  now  available  in  great 
variety  and  at  prices  closely  following  the  value  of  the  various 
grades.  Millions  of  pounds  of  the  raw  material  of  the  shoddy 
industry  are  new  cHps  of  fresh  cloth  cut  from  the  patterns  of 
garments  in  clothing  factories.  The  disagreeable  features  of 
the  reworked  wool  industry  are  magnified  by  constant  em- 
phasis on  the  fact  that  "rags' '  are  used  in  producing  them, 
and  the  impression  is  created  that  all  reworked  Wool  is  filthy 
and  unworthy  stuff.  To  foster  this  impression  is  as  unfair  as 
it  would  be  to  emphasize  the  filthy  habits  of  sheep  and  call 
new  wool  vile  names  because  of  the  fact  that  before  manu- 


^^1^" 


-Mr^  ^  iid>~   "'^p 


9 


facture  it  has  had  a  very  dirty  history.  The  processes  of 
reworking  wool  cleanse  the  fiber  so  that  reworked  wool  is  in 
no  wise  inferior  to  new  wool  so  far  as  cleanliness  is  concerned. 
The  important  point  is  not  whether  either  type  of  fiber  is 
cleaner,  but  it  is  the  fact  that  a  buyer  of  reworked  stock  can 
get  as  good  a  fiber  with  respect  to  condition  or  strength  as  he 
is  willing  to  pay  for. 

11.  The  proposed  depreciation  of  the  marketability  of 
reworked  wools  has  been  defended  on  the  ground  of  its  effect 
in  ^stimulating  the  wool-growing  industry  in  this  country. 
Almost  without  interruption  for  the  past  fifty  years  this 
country  has  imported  each  year  a  large  percentage  of  its 
wool  supply  notwithstanding  heavy  tariff  duties.  This  fact 
makes  it  clear  that  wool  is  bought  because  of  its  qualities  for 
certain  definite  purposes  rather  than  on  account  of  its  price 
per  pound  regardless  of  type.  It  completely  refutes,  also, 
the  statement  that  the  use  of  reworked  wools  has  had  any 
serious  deterrent  effect  on  wool  growing  in  this  country.  If 
the  use  of  reworked  wools  were  retarding  the  use  of  new  wools, 
importations  of  wool  would  have  been  checked  before  do- 
mestic production  of  wool  could  be  seriously  affected. 

12.  The  use  of  cotton  in  connection  with  wool  in  fabrics 
would  be  discouraged  by  this  law.  Next  to  reworked  wool, 
cotton  is  the  most  important  supplement  to  the  wool  supply. 
The  total  amount  of  cotton  and  cotton  yarn  used  in  1914  in 
the  production  of  woolens  and  worsteds  was  over  sixty 
million  pounds.  It  is  employed  in  the  manufacture  of  cotton- 
warp  worsted  filled  goods  (which  give  great  strength  and 
protection  at  much  less  cost  than  all-wool  fabrics),  and 
also  in  the  manufacture  of  goods  with  worsted  warp  and  cotton 
filling,  and  goods  of  blended  cotton  and  wool  fiber,  called 
"unions."  In  addition,  cotton  is  used  for  purposes  of  decora- 
tion. Never  in  the  course  of  normal  trade  are  goods  contain- 
ing cotton  offered  for  sale  by  wool  manufacturers  as  "all- 
wool."  This  practice  is  fraudulent,  and  it  also  is  unprofitable. 
The  presence  of  cotton  can  easily  be  detected  by  a  variety 
of  tests  in  common  use,  and  the  extensive  purchases  of  goods 
by  skilled  buyers,  as  in  the  case  of  clothing  manufacturers, 
would  make  it  impossible  to  avoid  detection  if  the  presence  of 


% 


10 


cotton  were  misrepresented.  All  these  fabrics  would  by 
the  bill  be  put  at  a  disadvantage  in  competition  with  all  new 
wool  fabrics  regardless  of  their  relative  merits. 

In  summary,  the  first  point  established  is  that  the  bill 
sets  up  false  standards  for  judging  quality.  It  follows  in- 
evitably that  the  establishment  of  such  standards  would 
tend  to  put  a  premium  on  fabrics  of  virgin  wool  no  matter 
how  inferior  they  might  be,  and  to  put  an  unfair  stigma  on 
fabrics  containing  any  appreciable  quantity  of  other  materials 
no  matter  how  desirable  those  fabrics  might  be.  The  brand- 
ing of  the  merchandise  on  the  basis  of  a  false  standard  of 
quality  gives  to  the  pubKc  no  guaranty  that  the  fabrics, 
whether  of  new  wool  or  of  mixed  materials,  possess  the 
properties  desired  and  paid  for.  On  the  contrary,  it  would 
facihtate  and  promote  deception. 

II.  The  proposed  hill  mil  add  to  the  difficulties  and  the  cost  of 
manufacturing  and  distributing  wool  fabrics. 

1.  Reworked  wool  is  employed  in  the  manufacture  of 
carded  woolens  and  not  in  the  manufacture  of  worsteds. 
Of  all-wool  carded  woolen  woven  goods  85.5  million  square 
yards  Were  produced  in  1914.  In  tihe  same  census  year,  there 
were  produced  237  million  square  yards  of  all-wool  worsted 
woven  goods.  In  the  making  of  worsteds  the  use  of  reworked 
wool  is  practically  impossible.  In  addition  to  these  all-wool 
woven  goods  there  were  produced  196  million  square  yards 
of  cotton  warp  woven  goods  and  46  million  yards  of  "unions,'* 
or  fabrics  of  blended  cotton  and  wool  fiber.  Carded  woolens 
(in  which  alone  reworked  stock  is  used),  including  fine  broad- 
cloths, meltons  and  other  high  grade  fabrics,  cannot  be 
sweepingly  declared  to  be  inferior  to  worsteds.  It  would  be 
a  serious  burden  on  the  public  to  impose  a  marking  system 
on  every  yard  of  565  million  yards  of  woven  fabrics  in  order 
to  give  the  public  a  wholly  meaningless  knowledge  of  the 
percentage  of  materials  in  an  indefinite  portion  (certainly 
less  than  one-half,  and  by  one  of  the  chief  advocates  of  the 
bill  reluctantly  admitted  to  be  as  little  as  twenty  per  cent.) 
in  which  reworked  wool  could  be  used  at  all,  to  say  nothing 
of  its  being  used  fraudulently.    As  will  be  pointed  out  sub- 


''4^ 


>       i 


'*» 


♦  i 


11 


sequently,  this  would  add  millions  of  dollars  a  year  to  the 
cost  of  producing  clothing  fabrics  in  this  country.  The  cost 
in  the  clothing  industry  would  be  even  greater. 

2.  Concerning  the  direct  cost  of  marking  fabrics  of 
wool  as  required  by  the  bill,  it  is  difficult  to  make  definite 
statements.  On  the  basis  of  the  census  of  1914  over  565,000,000 
yards  of  fabric  would  require  marking.  No  past  experience 
is  available  to  serve  as  a  basis  for  estimating  what  the  cost 
per  yard  of  marking  on  this  scale  would  be.  If  it  were  a 
negUgible  amount  like  one-half  cent  per  yard  the  total  cost 
would  be  $2,850,000.  At  the  rate  of  two  cents  a  yard  it  would 
be  $11,300,000,  and  if  it  involved  a  cost  of  five  cents  a  yard 
the  total  mcrease  in  the  cost  of  cloth  would  be  $28,000,000  on 
the  yardage  of  1914.  The  real  point  to  be  observed  in  this 
connection  is  the  fact  that  nobody  knows  what  it  would  cost 
because  marking  like  this  never  has  been  done  on  such  a 
large  scale. 

Three  methods  of  marking  alone  are  available  for  use. 
In  one,  by  attaching  a  dobbie  head  to  each  loom  on  which 
cloth  is  woven,  the  required  data  could  be  woven  into  the 
selvage  of  the  goods.  This,  however,  would  be  an  expensive 
method  of  marking,  and  while  perhaps  necessary  in  some 
cases  would  so  disturb  the  production  processes  and  add  so 
materially  to  production  costs  that  its  use  would  be  very 
restricted.  Another  method  of  marking  fabrics  in  accordance 
with  the  law,  which  is  much  cheaper,  would  be  by  means  of  a 
transfer  stamp.  This  process  is  covered  by  what  are  known 
as  "Kaumagraph"  patents,  which  still  have  a  number  of 
years  to  run.  The  Kaumagraph  attachments  now  in  use  are 
all  attached  to  measuring  machines  of  certain  types  made 
by  one  concern.  In  connection  with  these  particular  ma- 
chines the  attachment  is  a  device^ of  demonstrated  prac- 
ticability, although  its  use  slows  down  the  speed  of  the 
measuring  machine  on  wool  goods  to  45  yards  per  minute, 
whereas  its  normal  capacity  on  wool  goods  is  nearly  twice 
that.  The  use  of  the  Kaumagraph  in  connection  with  any 
other  machine  is  still  in  an  experimental  stage.  Moreover, 
there  are  less  than  a  score  of  mills  now  equipped  with  these 
Kaumagraph  attachments  now  engaged  in  wool  manufactur- 


12 


13 


ing.  At  anything  like  the  present  rate  of  production  for  the 
attachments  it  would  take  years  to  equip  the  mills  of  the 
country.  The  only  other  feasible  method  of  marking  by 
transfer  stamps  is  to  apply  stamps  by  hand,  having  the 
device  in  transfer  material  on  paper  strips  and  transferring 
it  to  the  cloth  by  use  of  a  hot  iron.  This  would  be  extremely 
expensive  and  would  involve  costly  changes  in  packing  rooms. 
The  third  method  of  marking,  by  means  of  stencils,  is  less 
satisfactory  than  either  of  the  others  described. 

Briefly,  the  conditions  with  respect  to  the  mechanics 
of  marking  are  these:  Mechanically  it  is  feasible;  actually, 
the  necessary  equipment  is  not  available  and  could  not  be 
for  all  the  induslry  for  several  years;  in  the  meantime  hand 
marking  would  have  to  be  resorted  to,  the  cost  of  which 
would  be  heavy.  Even  granting  that  the  necessary  machine 
equipment  eventually  could  be  secured,  the  cost  of  introduc- 
ing and  operating  such  a  system  of  compulsory  branding 
would  be  considerable,  as  each  attachment  would  represent 
an  initial  outlay  of  several  hundred  dollars  in  addition  to 
the  cost  of  operating.  The  cost  per  stamp  might  be  small, 
but  the  changing  of  brand  reels  with  each  fabric  made,  the 
safeguarding  against  the  use  of  wrong  reels,  the  storage  and 
handling  of  numerous  reels  of  different  percentages  and  in 
colors  to  suit  different  fabrics,  would  involve  extra  employees 
and  capital  outlay. 

3.  These  figures  make  no  allowance  for  the  cost  of 
registration  or  of  the  government  inspection  service  necessary 
to  check  up  the  accuracy  of  marks.  No  estimate  of  this 
inspection  cost  can  be  made,  but  it  probably  would  not  cost 
less  than  the  Federal  meat  inspection  service,  which  was 
$4,413,000  for  the  fiscal  year  ended  June  30,  1920,  and  which 
is  estimated  to  be  $4,518,000  for  the  present  fiscal  year. 

4.  These  are  only  the  direct  costs  of  carrying  out  the 
proposed  measure;  many  indirect  costs  would  develop.  For 
example,  in  many  cases  the  textile  worker's  pay  is  based  on 
the  rate  of  production.  The  retarding  of  production  would 
be  certain  to  increase  the  wages  cost  per  yard.  It  is  difficult 
to  put  into  figures  these  and  similar  indirect  costs,  but  they 
would  be  substantial  and  ought  not  to  be  ignored.     These 


I 


'#') 


^  '-  1 


and  even  greater  additions  to  cost  might  be  justified  if  in 
return  for  them  the  consumer  received  some  adequate  com- 
pensation in  the  way  of  security  against  some  serious  and 
commonly  practised  fraud.  But  he  would  not;  he  would  get 
merely  a  statement  about  the  component  materials  in  the 
fabric  bought,  which  would  have  no  relation  to  its  quaUty. 

5.  There  are  certain  mechanical  difliculties  connected 
with  marking  which  require  attention.  Granting  that  it 
may  be  mechanically  possible  to  put  a  brand  on  every  yard 
of  fabric  containing  wool,  manifestly  it  would  be  undesirable  to 
do  this  in  all  cases.  Fabrics  having  a  plaid  back,  for  example, 
would  have  their  value  seriously  impaired  if  an  indeUble 
mark  were  placed  on  every  yard,  and  if  the  mark  were  not 
indelible  the  way  would  be  open  for  fraud  by  erasure  which 
would  completely  destroy  the  effectiveness  of  the  law.  Again, 
in  the  case  of  delicate  fabrics  it  would  be  impossible  to  mark 
by  stamps  so  that  in  the  finished  garment  there  would  not 
be  ugly  blotches  at  intervals.  In  translucent  fabrics  the  brand 
might  not  show  through  except  upon  exposure  to  a  high  Ught, 
when  it  would  be  visible.  The  appearance  of  a  young  man 
clothed  in  white  flannel  trousers  with  the  brand  showing 
through  at  intervals,  when  he  appeared  in  the  sunlight,  would 
be  quite  seriously  impaired.  The  same  diflSculty  would  be 
found  in  many  types  of  dress  fabric.  Again,  even  though  the 
fabric  may  not  be  delicate  the  brand  might  be  a  nuisance. 
An  unlined  overcoat,  or  coat  with  a  brand  on  every  yard 
showing  the  raw  material  content  probably  would  not  meet 
with  general  public  approval.  Such  branding  would  also 
put  an  end  to  the  thrifty  practice  of  * 'turning"  and  remaking 
dresses  and  suits.  If  brands  are  put  only  on  the  selvage,  they 
can  be  cut  off  easily,  and  there  will  be  no  way  of  proving  what 
the  milPs  brand  was  unless  there  is  a  costly  system  of  in- 
spection in  mills,  clothing  factories,  and  stores. 

6.  In  addition  to  the  added  cost  and  the  hindrance  of 
production,  there  would  be  certain  confusion  brought  about 
in  the  mills'  distributing  problems.  Incompetent  manufac- 
turers who  would  by  the  terms  of  the  bill  be  able  to  ascertain 
the  percentages  in  successful  blends  of  wool  would  be  led  to 
imitate  them,  and  many  inferior  fabrics  would  follow  the 


4      A 


14 


development  of  any  successful  combination.  This  form  of 
imitative  competition  with  the  sanction  of  a  misleading 
branding  of  content  (the  use  of  which  is  enforced)  would 
result  in  a  confusion  of  the  consumer  infinitely  worse  than 
even  the  worst  that  can  follow  any  failure  to  distinguish  be- 
tween new  and  reworked  wool. 

7.  It  has  been  shown  that  reworked  wool  blended  with 
new  wool  in  certain  wool  fabrics  makes  possible  the  produc- 
tion of  fabrics  at  a  low  price  which  can  be  made  entirely  of 
new  wool  only  at  a  much  higher  price.  Fabrics  of  these  sub- 
stitute materials  cannot,  under  normal  conditions  of  com- 
petition, be  sold  in  the  ordinary  course  of  trade  as  anything 
except  what  they  are — good  fabrics  at  a  price  much  below 
the  price  of  similar  fabrics  of  new  wool.  To  put  on  these 
fabrics  the  stigma  of  bearing  a  name  which  is  misleading  to 
the  public  would  compel  manufacturers  to  rearrange  many 
blends  of  fiber  which  are  the  result  of  years  of  practice  and 
experiment  in  cloth  construction.  Many  excellent  fabrics 
now  are  made  by  the  use  of  blends  of  new  and  reworked 
wool.  Some  of  these  blends  are  simple,  while  others  are 
quite  complicated,  calling  for  definite  and  different  propor- 
tions in  warp  and  filUng.  If  reworked  wools  regardless  of 
quality,  are  thus  to  have  their  unpopularity  in  the  pubUc 
mind  impede  their  sale,  it  would  be  necessary  in  many  cases 
to  rearrange  blends  so  as  to  work  out  a  percentage  having  the 
least  prejudice  against  it  in  the  public  mind. 

8.  The  quality  of  the  fabric,  as  has  been  shown,  is  not 
determined  by  the  material  content  alone.  Because  of  the 
easy  acceptance  by  the  public  of  the  implied  claim  that  the 
quaUty  of  fabrics  has  a  definite  relation  to  the  percentage  of 
new  wool  in  them,  fabrics  made  of  all  virgin  wool  and  so 
branded  under  this  bill  must  be  expected  to  sell  at  a  premium. 
The  statement  that  a  fabric  is  made  of  "100  per  cent,  virgin 
wool"  will  serve  as  a  claim  of  high  quality.  Any  fabrics 
bearing  it  will  find  more  ready  sale  than  others,  regardless  of 
merit.  The  use  of  substitute  material  makes  it  possible  to 
produce  fabrics  to  sell  at  medium  and  low  prices  which  have 
many  of  the  desirable  qualities  of  high-priced  fabrics.  As 
will  be  brought  out  later,  the  methods  by  which  modern 


*  i 


15 


business  is  conducted  make  it  very  rare  for  these  mixed 
fabrics  to  be  sold  except  for  what  they  are.  By  this  law  undue 
suspicions  would  be  thrown  about  all  fabrics,  whether  woolens 
or  worsteds,  bearing  any  mark  except  one  claiming  100  per 
cent,  new  wool.  Many  fabrics  now  sold  on  their  merits  as 
mixed  fabrics  and  without  deception  of  the  public,  and 
abundantly  worth  the  price  charged  for  them,  would  be 
obHged  to  overcome  a  public  branding  which  puts  an  un- 
deserved stigma  on  them. 

9.  Another  matter  for  serious  consideration  is  the 
diflSculty  of  enforcing  the  branding  regulations  in  the  case  of 
imported  goods.  The  difficulty  of  establishing  a  case  against 
a  foreign  manufacturer,  even  under  the  terms  of  the  bill  as 
drawn,  and  the  difficulty  of  securing  prosecution,  even  after 
the  case  had  been  established,  would  constitute  an  advantage 
to  the  foreign  manufacturer  in  competition  with  the  American 
wool  fabric  maker. 

In  summary,  the  second  point  made  is  that  this  proposed 
bill,  if  enacted,  will  increase  the  cost  of  producing  all  fabrics 
of  wool,  which  eventually  must  fall  on  the  consumer.  He 
would  be  obUged  to  pay  a  higher  price  for  raw  material;  he 
would  pay  for  the  cost  of  marking,  and  the  indirect  additions 
to  the  cost  of  manufacture;  he  would  pay  higher  prices  for 
all  virgin  wool  fabrics,  and  many  good  mixed  fabrics  now 
sold  at  a  low  price  would  be  driven  from  the  market;  and  in 
return  for  all  this  he  would  get  only  a  misleading  brand. 

III.  The  proposed  hill  cannot  give  to  the  public  any  protection 
against  fraud  not  normally  afforded  by  the  operation  of 
competition.  A  law  preventing  misbranding  is  preferable  to 
the  law  proposed. 

1.  Before  considering  the  effectiveness  of  the  pro- 
posed bill  in  the  protection  of  the  pubUc  as  compared  with  the 
normal  protection  granted  by  competitive  conditions,  it  is 
necessary  to  recognize  the  distinction  between  fraudulent 
practices  of  the  small  minority  of  the  industry  and  trade 
on  the  one  hand  and  business  methods  developed  by  honestly 
conducted  industry  and  trade  on  the  other  hand:  First  let 
us  consider  honest  business.     Honest  business  ought  to  be 


11 


\\\ 


'II 


16 


encouraged  to  conduct  itself  with  economy  and  with  ease. 
Competition  as  long  as  it  is  unrestricted  and  is  conducted  on 
an  honest  basis  forces  the  cloth  manufacturer  to  put  into  any 
fabric  to  be  sold  at  a  given  price  a  maximum  of  those  qualities 
desired  by  the  public  and  to  be  found  in  competing  fabrics 
at  the  same  or  a  similar  price.  It  has  repeatedly  been  pointed 
out  that  these  quaUties  are  not  dependent  on  the  amoimt  of 
virgin  wool  in  the  fabric.  Any  manufacturer  who  does  not 
put  into  his  fabrics  the  largest  amount  of  these  qualities 
compatible  with  the  price  charged  will  in  the  normal  course  of 
honestly  conducted  trade  be  eliminated  or  be  forced  to  reduce 
his  price  to  correspond  with  the  qualities  of  his  goods.  Of 
wool  fabrics  for  clothing,  the  greater  part  are  now  sold  to 
clothing  manufacturers,  whose  expert  buyers  are  not  easily 
deceived  with  respect  to  the  relation  between  the  quality  of 
the  fabrics  they  buy  and  the  prices  they  pay  for  them.  The 
prevailing  practice  in  the  clothing  trade,  as  in  the  fabric 
business,  is  the  conduct  of  business  on  an  honest  basis,  and 
with  from  one  to  three  expert  buyers  standing  between  him 
and  the  cloth  mill,  there  is  little  chance  of  the  consumer 
getting  a  fabric  poorer  in  quality  than  he  pays  for.  In  a 
measure  the  same  safeguard  exists  in  the  case  of  the  business 
of  handling  fabrics  for  sale  over  the  counter.  Retail  stores 
operating  on  any  considerable  scale  cannot  afiford  to  have  a 
buying  staff  unable  to  judge  accurately  of  qualities,  nor  can 
such  a  store  afford  to  mislead  its  customers  as  to  the  quality 
of  its  merchandise  at  the  price  paid.  So  far  as  the  greater 
part  of  the  trade  is  concerned  either  in  the  case  of  ready-to- 
wear  or  over-the-counter  business,  it  is  impossible  for  any 
appreciable  amount  of  dishonest  competition  to  be  carried 
on  without  certain  and  costly  retribution.  That  portion  of 
the  fabric  business  which  is  honestly  conducted  clearly  would 
not  be  helped  nor  would  it  serve  its  customers  better  under 
the  proposed  law. 

2.  The  percentage  of  the  total  volume  of  the  fabric 
industry  and  trade  which  is  dishonestly  conducted  is  extreme- 
ly small,  and  most  of  the  changes  in  the  organization  of 
trade  methods  which  have  taken  place  during  the  last  genera- 
tion have  been  of  such  a  character  as  to  make  dishonest 


K   i 


"^t 


M  4    l!i% 


17 


competitive  methods  unpopular  and  unprofitable.  The 
really  pertinent  point,  however,  in  connection  with  fraudulent 
practices  in  the  sale  of  wool  textiles,  is  the  fact  that  the  im- 
position of  a  requirement  that  fabrics  shall  be  marked  to 
indicate  their  composition  on  a  basis  which  has  no  relation 
to  their  quality  would  have  no  appreciable  effect  in  reducing 
such  fraud  as  may  exist.  It  would  merely  introduce  a  new 
chance  for  the  misleading  of  the  public. 

3.  Fraudulent  competition  has  been  successfully  attacked 
only  by  direct  methods  aimed  at  false  representations.  By 
an  old  and  generally  accepted  principle  of  law  the  buyer  is 
supposed  to  exercise  reasonable  prudence  in  his  purchases. 
But  the  spirit  of  the  law  defends  him  against  deliberate 
misrepresentation.  In  Great  Britain  the  Merchandise  Marks 
Act,  which  is  designed  to  meet  those  evils  to  which  fraud  in 
the  sale  of  cloth  belongs,  has  been  in  force  in  its  present 
form  since  1887.  This  law  in  effect,  so  far  as  it  bears  on  false 
representations,  does  not  require  the  manufacturer  or  mer- 
chant to  make  any  claim  or  statement  concerning  the  nature 
of  his  merchandise,  but  if  he  makes  iany  claim  or  statement, 
it  must  be  an  honest  one,  and  heavy  penalties  are  imposed 
in  case  any  misleading  statement  is  made.  A  bill  based  on  the 
British  Merchandise  Marks  Act  is  now  before  Congress. 
Apparently  the  pubUc  feels  some  need  for  legislation  better 
to  protect  it  against  false  representations  in  the  sale  of  mer- 
chandise. This  feeling  applies  to  wool  fabrics  as  well  as  to 
many  other  lines.  If  there  is  to  be  legislation,  it  should  take 
the  form  of  a  law  of  this  kind,  the  enforceability  of  which  has 
been  demonstrated  and  which  is  based  on  a  sound  principle 
of  law,  (The  Lodge-Rogers  Honest  Merchandise  Bill).  This 
would  be  more  effective  as  a  protection  to  the  public  in  the 
case  of  wool  fabrics  than  would  the  establishment  of  a  set  of 
standards  based  on  percentages  of  component  materials, 
when  a  knowledge  of  these  percentages  gives  to  the  consumer 
no  trustworthy  idea  of  the  quality  of  the  fabrics. 

In  summary,  the  third  point  made  is  that  the  proposed 
legislation,  so  far  as  it  is  designed  for  the  protection  of  the 
public,  is  aimed  at  the  dishonest  few  in  the  wool  industries. 
Normal  conditions  protect  the  public  against  fraud  in  all 


II 


MukVI 


mmmiM 


18 


except  a  small  percentage  of  cases.  These  dishonest  persons 
should  be  hunted  out  and  their  practices  stopped  by  means 
which  will  protect  the  public  against  them  instead  of  by  a 
type  of  legislation  whose  chief  effect  will  be  to  handicap  honest 
business  while  making  possible  new  types  of  fraud. 

'  GENERAL  SUMMARY 

It  has  been  shown  that  the  proposed  bill  (The  Capper 
Bill)  would  put  a  premium  on  fabrics  of  new  wool.  That  is 
its  avowed  purpose.  It  has  been  shown  also  that  it  would 
put  an  unfair  stigma  on  reworked  wool  and  fabrics  containing 
that  material.  This  would  be  desirable  either  if  reworked 
wool  were  a  bad  fiber  or  if  fabrics  made  from  it  were  necessari- 
ly of  poorer  quality  than  fabrics  of  new  wool;  but  they  are 
not,  and  this  also  has  been  proved.  It  has  been  shown  that 
the  branding  as  prescribed  by  the  law  would  have  no  relation 
to  the  value  or  desired  properties  of  the  fabrics,  and  that 
instead  of  such  marking  making  it  possible  for  the  consumer 
to  know  what  he  is  buying  it  would  merely  add  to  his  con- 
fusion. It  has  been  shown  that  normal  competition  serves  as 
a  better  check  on  fraud  than  the  enactment  and  enforcement 
of  this  measure  could  be.  It  has  been  shown  that  the  law 
would  make  wool  fabrics  cost  more  and  that  the  consumer 
would  receive  no  adequate  compensation  for  this  increase  in 
price.  It  has  been  shown  that  the  proposed  measiure  would 
not  correct  the  evils  it  aims  at,  while  another  measure  (The 
Honest  Merchandise  Act)  based  on  the  tested  principle  of 
law  would.  This  Capper  so-called  "Truth  in  Fabric"  law 
would  be  ineffective,  costly,  and  against  the  public  interest. 


CHARLES  H.  WILSON,  Chairman,  1 


FREDERIC  S.  CLARK, 
SAMUEL  R.  HAINES, 
CARL  VETTER, 


y  Committee, 


J 


JOHN  P.  WOOD,  President, 

National  Association  of  Wool  Manufacturers, 

PAUL  T.  CHERINGTON, /Secretot/, 

National  Association  of  Wool  Manufacturers, 


^^ 


*    ''m'^ 


19 


APPENDIX  I. 

The  Census  for  1914  gives  the  following  figures  covering  the  quantity 
of  virgin  wool  consumed  in  the  various  branches  of  the  wool  manufacture. 
These  figures  are  for  wool  in  the  condition  in  which  it  was  purchased;  that 
is  to  say,  the  figures  give  the  amount  in  pounds  whether  the  wool  was  in 
the  grease  or  scoured. 

Pounds  of  Wool  in  Condition  Purchased^  Census  Year  1914 

Total  wool  manufactures 502,857,333 

Woolen  goods 78,873,319 

Worsted  goods 355,854,756 

Carpets  and  rugs 52,552,449 

Felt  goods 14,969,852 

Wool  felt  hats 606,957 

The  figures  for  the  principal  fibers  used  in  wool  manufacture  in  1914 
(industries  as  above  listed)  given  in  millions  of  pounds  were  as  follows: 

Total 458 

Scoured  wool .». 307.7 

Mohair,  camel  hair,  alpaca  and  vicuna 15.9 

Other  animal  hair 28.1 

♦Recovered  wool  fiber 70.9 

Cotton 38.3 

*Note — Recovered  wool  fiber  as  here  reported  by  the  census  includes 
30.1  million  pounds  purchased  and  40.8  million  pounds  "made  for  con- 
sumption" within  the  establishment  where  made.  This  table,  it  will  be 
observed,  is  reproduced  as  given  in  the  census  figures  and  does  not  include 
the  quantity  of  rags,  clips,  etc.,  purchased,  which  amounted  to  62  million 
pounds.  If  this  figure  were  added  and  the  amount  of  reworked  stock  made 
from  it  were  subtracted  the  total  of  fibers  used  as  given  above  would  be 
increased  to  479.2  million  pounds.  For  the  reasons  made  clear  above 
there  would  be  duplication  if  both  the  figure  for  rags  and  for  the  fiber 
made  from  them  were  included. 


tl 


M 


li 


m$ 


mmm 


20 


APPENDIX  II. 

New  Materials  Used  in  Woolen-Goods  and  Worsted-Goods 

Industries 

Census  of  1914 


Total 

*Wool  in  condition  purchased 434.7 

Tops 29.1 

Yarns  purchased: 

Woolen 2.1 

Worsted 53.6 


Millions  of  Pounds 

Woolen 

Worsted 

Industry 

Industry 

78.9 

355.8 

.6 

28.5 

.8 

1.3 

2.6 

51.0 

Total  wool,  wool  tops  and  wool  yam. . 
Mohair,  camel,  alpaca  and  vicuna . . 


519.5 
14.3 


Total  wool,  tops,  yam  and  mohair,  etc .  .  533.8 

All  other  animal  hair 14.7 

Total  wool,  tops,  yarn  and  all  hair 548.5 

Waste  and  noils 42.4 

Total  loool,  tops,  yam,  hair,  noils,  and 

waste 590.9 

Total  wool,  tops,  yam,  noils  and  waste 

{not  including  hair) 561.9 

•Scoured  equivalent  of  wool  purchased..  257.4 


82.9 
2.3 

85.2 
13.9 

99.1 
37.9 


137.0 

120.8 
58.7 


436.6 
12.0 

448.6 
.8 

449.4 
4.5 


453.9 

441.1 
198.7 


V    *    % 


21 


APPENDIX  II— Continued 

Reworked  Materials  Used  in  Woolen-Goods  and 
Worsted-Goods  Industries 

Census  of  1914 

Millions  of  Pounds 

Woolen         Worsted 

Tcftal       Industry        Industry 

Rags,  clips,  etc.  (purchased) 59.4  58.7  .7 

♦Recovered  wool  fiber  (purchased) 26.2  25.9  .3 

Total  reworked  stock  (purchased) 85.6  84.6  1.0 

Merino  yarns  purchased .53  .48  .05 

Total  reworked  material  not  including 

waste  and  noils  (purchased) 86.13  85.08  1.05 

*^oie — There  were  two  sources  of  recovered  wool  fiber  reported  in 
the  census.  One  was  the  source  here  indicated — ^namely,  by  purchase — 
the  other  was  the  reworked  wool  stock  made  in  mills  for  use  in  the  establish- 
ment. This  was  made  chiefly  from  the  rags,  clips,  and  other  materials 
purchased.  The  amount  of  such  stock  made  for  consumption  withip  the 
mills  was  40.1  million  pounds,  (39.6  million  pounds  in  the  woolen  industry 
and  500,000  pounds  in  the  worsted  industry).  As  the  poundage  thus 
represented  is  smaller  than  that  for  the  materials  from  which  it  was  made, 
we  have  used  here  the  larger  figure  (rags,  clips,  etc.,  purchased).  There 
would  be  obvious  dupUcation  if  both  this  figure  and  that  for  the  stock 
made  from  this  material  were  used.  The  combined  quantity  of  purchased 
and  made  reworked  wool  stock  used  was  66.3  miUion  pounds. 


Fiber  Materials  Other  Than  Wool  Used  in  the  Woolen-Goods  and 

Worsted-Goods  Industries 

Census  of  1914 

Millions  of  Pounds 
Woolen         Worsted 
Total  Industry        Industry 

Cotton  raw 28.3  23.9  4.4 

Cotton  yarn  purchased 32.1  15.3  16.8 

Total  cotton  and  cotton  yarn 60.4  39.2  21.2 

Silk  and  spun  silk .5  .1  .4 

All  other  fibers 1.978  1.975  .003 

The  foregoing  figures,  as  has  been  specifically  stated,  cover  only  the 
woolen  goods  and  worsted  goods  branches  of  the  wool  manufactiue. 


I! 


■Hiiii 


22 


APPENDIX  III. 

Products  of  the  Woolen-Goods  and  Worsted-Goods  Industries 

Census  of  1914 

Millions  of  Sq.  Yds. 

Produced  Produced 

by  by 

Woolen  Worsted 

Goods  Goods 

.„         -                                   ,                     Total           Industry  Industry 

All  wool  woven  goods,  total.' 323.                85.6  237.4 

Wool    suitings,    overcoatings    and 

dress  goods 90.9              74.2  16.7 

Worsted  suitings,  overcoatings  and 

dress  goods 222.4                2.5  219.9 

Flannels 2.2  2.2 

Blankets 6.5                sis  .7 

Other 1.0                 .9  .1 

Cotton  warp  woven  goods,  total 196.2  102.9              93.3 

Wool  filling  suitings,  overcoatings 

and  dress  goods 53.5  48.3                5.2 

Worsted  filling  suitings,  overcoat- 
ings and  dress  goods 56.8  2,7              54.1 

Domett  Flannels  and  shirtings.  ...  16.1  16.1 

Linings,  Italian  cloth  and  lastings  .  36.2  2.3              33.9 

Satinets  and  hnseys 8.4  8.4 

Blankets 17.9  17.9 

^^  .Other 7.3  7.2                 .1 

Unions  or  cotton  mixed  woven  goods, 

total 46.2  40.0                6.2 

Cotton  mixed  suitings,  overcoatings 

and  dress  goods 31.4  28.5                2.9 

Flannels 5.0  5.0 

Blankets 4.0  4.0 

Other 5.8  2.5               3.3 

The  other  chief  products  of  the  woolen  goods  and  worsted  goods 
industries  were  upholstery  goods,  yarns,  tops,  noils,  and  waste. 


23 


APPENDIX  IV. 

Percentage  of  Reworked  Wool  to  Total  Wool  Fiber  Retained  for 
Consumption  in  the  United  Kingdom* 


1905 
1906 
1907 
1908 
1909 


Av.  1905-09 

1910 
1911 
1912 
1913 
1914 

Av.  1910-14 

1915 
1916  . 
1917 
1918 


Total 
wool  fiber 


Reworked 
wool  fiber 


Millions  of  Pounds 
679.7  180 

734.3  190 

833.4  210 
738.0  180 
775.7         205 


752.6 


193 


Percentage  of 
reworked  wool 
in  total 


25.6 


872.2 

226 

876.3 

210 

833.3 

201 

872.2 

205 

759.0 

190 

842.6 

206.4 

24.5 

1159.6 

200 

17 

950.7 

210 

22 

879.0 

130 

14.5 

636.7 

100 

15.7 

"Figures  prepared  by  Bradford  Chamber  of  Commerce. 


/ 


LIBRARY  '       S^ 
SCHOOL  OF  BUSINESS 


/ 


«c^, 


f 


Oot 


Op 


^(J, 


COMPULSORY  BRANDING 


OV^^)^ 


^^ 


FABRICS. 


TO   CORRECT   SUCH  MISREPRESENTATION  AS  MAY  EXIST,  A 

COSTLY  AND    INEFFECTIVE   REMEDY   SHOULD   NOT 

BE  ADVOCATED   WHEN  AN   EFFECTIVE  AND 

ECONOMICAL  REMEDY  IS  AVAILABLE. 


(Excerpts  from  testimony  conceming  the  French-Capper  compulsory  branding 
hill  before  a  committee  of  the  United  States  Senate,  June  1-8,  1921,  and 
July  7  and  8. ) 

The  bill  introduced  into  the  Senate  by  Senator  Capper  of 
Kansas  to  compel  the  branding  of  wool  fabrics  and  clothing 
containing  wool  with  their  fiber  content  was  referred  to  the 
Senate  Committee  on  Interstate  Commerce.  It  in  turn  re- 
ferred the  bill  to  a  sub-committee  composed  of  Senators  Wat- 
son, Indiana;  Fernald,  Maine;  and  Smith,  South  Carolina, 
for  hearings.  These  hearings  began  June  1,  and  were  contin- 
ued through  June  1,  2,  3,  7,  and  July  7  and  8. 

Much  new  testimony  was  produced  to  show  the  way  in 
which  the  bill,  if  enacted,  would  injuriously  affect  both  the 
wool  manufacturer  and  the  maker  of  ready-made  clothing, 
without  in  the  least  aiding  the  purchaser  to  buy  either  fabrics 
or  clothing  intelligently.  The  same  unenlightened  arguments 
advanced  before  the  House  Committee  in  1920  were  met  and 
refuted,  and  many  explanations  of  technical  matters,  clear  to 
all  acquainted  with  wool  manufacture,  had  to  be  made  to  the 
members  of  the  committee.  Many  of  these  have  been  elimi- 
nated from  the  testimony  herewith  reproduced,  but  the  essen- 
tial statements  necessary  for  an  understanding  of  the  points 
made  have  been  retained.  The  clear  testimony  of  the  wit- 
nesses opposing  the  bill  shows  how  utterly  futile  the  proposed 
law  would  be  to  aid  uninformed  purchasers,  the  class  osten- 
sibly in  whose  interests  the  bill  is  proposed  for  enactment, 
and  what  opportunities  would  be  given  by  the  law  to  foreign 
manufacturers  to  invade  this  m^arket,  and  to  dishonest  manu- 
facturers by  evading  its  provisions  to  impose  upon  unsuspect- 
ing buyers,  misled  by  the  labels  required  by  the  law. 


The  sub-committee  plans  to  have  certain  samples  of  cloth 
tested  by  chemists  and  microscopists  in  the  Bureau  of  Stand- 
ards and  the  Department  of  Agriculture  to  determine,  if  they 
can,  which  ones  contain  reworked  wool  and  which  contain  wool 
never  before  used  and  the  percentages  of  each.  Upon  this  test, 
the  chairman  of  the  sub-committee  has  announced,  according 
to  a  newspaper  statement,  will  depend  the  recommendation  to 
be  made  by  the  smaller  body  to  the  full  committee. 

The  testimony  of  Mr.  John  P.  Wood,  president  of  the  Na- 
tional Association  of  Wool  Manufacturers,  one  of  those  con- 
vincing statements,  reduced  somewhat  in  size  to  meet  the  re- 
quirements of  our  space,  was  as  follows : 

Mr.  Wood.  The  mills  with  which  I  am  personally  associated  make 
pure  worsted  goods  in  which  there  is  no  shoddy,  reworked  wool,  or 
other  substitutes  for  wool. 

Senator  Watson.   Do  they  make  anything  else? 

Mr.  Wood.    No,  sir;  their  raw  material  is  not  mere  virgin  wool 
but  is  virgin  wool  of  fine  quality  from  which  the  shorter  fibers  of 
virgin  wool  which  would  not  give  strength  to  the  fabric  have  been 
eombed  out. 

This  statement  is  not  intended  to  unply  any  special  or  exclusive 
merit  lor  these  miUs,  for  there  are  a  great  many  American  mills 
tHat  use  only  the  same  character  of  raw  material.  I  mention  the 
tact  only  by  way  of  refuting  the  implication  so  often  made  by  the 
advocates  of  the  bill  under  consideration  that  it  is  opposed  onlv  bv 
shoddy  manufacturers  and  rag  pickers. 

Of  the  large  number  of  manufacturers  using  pure  new  virgin 
wool  only,  I  know  of  but  one  company  that  approves  the  French- 
Capper  biU,  and  Its  approval  is  inseparably  associated  with  an 
advertising  campaign  erected  upon  its  advocacy  of  the  measure. 

Ihe  others  are  opposed  to  the  measure  because  they  know  that 
It  will  give  to  inferior  virgin  wool  fabrics  a  legislative  sanction 
that  will  cause  the  unskilled  consumer  to  appraise  their  intrinsic 
material  worth  as  equal  to  that  of  the  better  goods  which  bear  the 
same  required  label.  .  .  . 

It  will  be  helpful  to  an  understanding  of  this  subject  and  will 
save  time  m  the  end  if  I  explain,  or  define  these  raw  materials  to 
which  reference  must  be  made.  With  the  aid  of  a  few  samples  this 
can  be  quicMy  done.  The  information  may  incidentally  prove  of 
interest  m  the  consideration  of  other  legislation  concerning  wool 
which  IS  soon  to  come  before  you. 

VIRGIN  wool  is  a  NEW  TERM  ADOPTED  BY  THE  PROPONENTS  OF  THIS 

MEASURE. 

1.  Jiio?''  7""^  •''  %  ""^"^  ^^"^  ^^^P^^  ^y  the  proponents  of  this 
egislation  to  signify  pure  new  wool  unmixed  with  any  wool  fiber 

matrid,  n::rm:'''''  -nufactured,  or  with  any  otLr  fiber  or 

Reworked  wool  and  shoddy  are,  so  far  as  concerns  this  subiect 
synonymous  and  mterchangeable  terms,  applied  toTool  which  has 


previously  been  manufactured,  but  which  has  again  had  its  fibers 
disintegrated. 

There  are  many  stages  in  the  conversion  of  raw  wool  into  manu- 
factured articles,  and  for  the  purposes  of  this  bill  it  is  necessary  to 
arbitrarily  determine  at  what  stage  in  the  course  of  its  progress 
from  the  sheep's  back  to  the  finished  article,  new  wool  must  cease 
to  be  known  as  new  and  thereafter  be  classified  as  old.  The 
authors  of  this  bill  fixed  this  point  as  just  prior  to  the  spinning 
of  the  yam.  ... 

Up  to  this  stage  of  single  spun  yam,  the  French-Capper  bill 
classifies  all  of  the  fiber,  including  the  by-products  and  waste,  as 
virgin  wool. 

Once  the  fiber  has  been  spun  into  this  form  it  cannot,  if  thereafter 
separated  into  the  integral  fibers,  be  classed  as  virgin  wool.  It 
matters  not  whether  the  thread  has  ever  been  carried  to  completed 
manufacture  or  not,  nor  how  new,  pure,  and  unused  the  fiber  itself 
may  be.  Just  as  your  automobile  becomes  a  second-hand  one  the 
moment  you  have  taken  it  from  the  dealer,  so  do  these  fibers  become 
second-hand  the  instant  they  pass  from  roving  to  yarn.  And  by 
itself  there  would  be  nothing  to  criticize  in  that  distinction.  The 
dividing  line  is  probably  as  good  as  any  that  could  be  selected ;  and 
there  would  be  no  ground  for  complaint  upon  that  score  if  the 
matter  was  not  infinitely  complicated,  because  on  one  side  of  the 
line  there  are  so  many  worthless  or  exceedingly  poor  things  entitled 
to  the  term  "virgin  wool,"  while  on  the  other  side  there  are  as 
many  of  superior  quality  and  value  that  must  unjustly  carry  a 
name  popularly  associated  with  inferiority  and  worthlessness.  .  .  . 

The  purport  of  the  bill  is  to  enable  the  purchaser  of  woolen 
goods  and  woolen  garments  to  distinguish  between  superior  and 
inferior  qualities  of  such  merchandise. 

If  such  a  law  could  accomplish  that  purpose,  it  would  only  be 
necessary  to  consider  whether  it  would  be  worth  the  cost  to  the 
consumer.  If  the  cost  would  not  be  excessive  the  enactment  would 
be  advisable  without  regard  to  the  inconvenience  or  trouble  that  it 
might  cause  for  manufacturers  and  merchants. 

If,  however,  the  consumer-purchaser  would  not  be  aided  in  dis- 
tinguishing between  better  and  poorer  qualities,  the  statute  books 
ought  not  to  be  encumbered  with  a  useless  law,  even  though  it  would 
be  entirely  harmless  and  would  neither  increase  the  cost  of  clothing 
nor  complicate  the  processes  of  manufacture  and  distribution. 

But  if  the  enactment  of  a  bill  like  this  would  actually  facilitate 
deception  as  to  quality,  increase  the  price  on  woolen  goods  and  gar- 
ments, and  add  to  the  expenses  of  governmental  administration; 
such  enactment  would  be  worse  than  negatively  unwise,  it  would  be 
unqualifiedly  bad  legislation. 

THE  QUALITY  OF  THE  FABRIC  IS  A  MATTER  OF  CONSTRUCTION. 

If  the  quality  of  woolen  products  was  determined  by  the  raw 
material  of  which  they  are  made,  and  if  there  was  a  well-defined  line 
of  demarcation  between  superior  and  inferior  raw  material,  all 
virgin  wool  being  upon  the  one  side  and  all  other  materials  on  the 
other,  there  might  be  some  utility  in  branding  the  products  with  a 
description  of  the  raw  material  components.  But  neither  of  the 
premises  is  true,  the  quality  of  the  finished  product  is  a  matter  of 


construction.  Good  materials  will  not  insure  a  strong  and 
enduring  building  or  bridge  unless  the  design  and  the  workmanship 
are  right.  Some  costly  structures  of  reinforced  concrete,  and  others 
of  steel,  have  collapsed  even  before  they  were  completed,  while  some 
of  the  most  ancient  structures  in  existence  were  built  of  adobe  or 
other  sun-baked  clays. 

The  raw  materials  employed  in  the  making  of  woolen  goods  ao 
not  differ  in  quality  according  as  they  are  of  new  or  reworked  wool. 
Both  classes  vary  by  infinite  gradations  from  very  good  to  very 
poor,  and  of  the  innumerable  qualities  of  new  wool  there  are  many 
sorts' that  are  greatly  inferior  to  many  kinds  of  reworked  wool. 

So  it  is  impossible  by  any  mere  enumeration  of  the  components 
of  a  fabric  to  indicate  its  worthiness.  The  intrinsic  worth  of  the 
components  cannot  in  the  slightest  degree  be  expressed  by  the 
names  of  the  components.  A  fabric  of  100  per  cent  reworked  wool 
may  be  infinitely  superior  in  every  desirable  attribute  and  quality  to 
another  made  of  100  per  cent  of  new  wool,  because  the  reworked 
raw  material  of  the  one  may  be  superior  to  the  new  wool  of  the 
other,  or  because  the  structural  design  or  the  workmanship  of  the 
one  may  be  better  than  of  the  other.  ... 

The  bill  would  put  in  one  group  all  new  wool,  the  excellent,  good, 
fair,  poor,  and  worthless,  and  with  these  would  be  included  all  noils 
and  card  waste.  Articles  manufactured  from  any  of  these  would  be 
branded  100  per  cent  virgin  wool,  no  matter  how  poor  the  raw 
material  or  how  worthless  the  construction  and  workmanship. 

Into  the  other  group  would  be  placed  all  gametted  new  yam, 
tailors'  clips,  broken  knitted  work,  together  with  aU  the  reworked 
wool  And  all  articles  containing  any  part  of  these  materials,  how- 
ever excellent  the  raw  material  or  however  good  the  method  of  con- 
struction and  skill  of  workmanship,  must  be  so  designated  as  to 
promote  doubt  and  suspicion,  because  the  public  doesnt  have  the 
technical  knowledge  to  appraise  the  terms  at  their  intrinsic 
value.  .  .  . 

WEARING  QUALITY  OF  ARMY  OVERCOATS  CONTAIXING  SHODDY. 

Senator  Watson.  After  we  adjourned  on  Saturday  I  went  to 
lunch  where  I  met  a  number  of  Senators  and  I  fell  to  discussing 
this  measure.  Among  other  Senators  present  was  Senator  Wads- 
worth,  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Military  Affairs  and  a  very 
able  man.  In  discussing  the  matter  he  said  that  it  was  ascertained 
by  actual  experience  and  experimentation  that  the  German  over- 
coat, that  is,  the  overcoat  made  by  Germans  for  their  soldiers,  was 
the  warmest  of  any  of  the  overcoats  furnished  by  the  countries  at 
war  to  their  soldiers.  And  he  said  that  out  of  their  experience  the 
conclusion  was  reached  that  the  warmest  overcoat  made  for  their 
soldiers  was  made  from  goods  consisting  of  70  per  cent  virgin  wool 
and  30  per  cent  shoddy,  and  that  in  the  manufacture  of  the  goods 
they  had  found  they  could  not  get  the  same  degree  of  warmth  from 
pure  wool,  that  the  shoddy  gave  additional  warmth.  Is  that  so  or 
not  so,  according  to  your  view? 

Mr.  Wood.  Senator,  I  will  help  the  opponents  to  an  avoidance  of 
an  answer  to  that  question  by  saying  that  he  went  a  step  too  far 
by  saying  that  it  would  be  warmer.  .,     .        u 

'  Senator  Watson.   I  am  just  saying  what  was  said,  though. 


Mr  Wood.  But  it  is  just  as  warm,  and  so  durable  that  with  the 
hardest  kind  of  wear  in  ordinary  service  our  soldiers  would  not  wear 
out  an  ov^^^^^^^  not  made  of  70-30,  but  of  65-35  that  is,  65  per  cent 
of  virgin  wool  and  35  per  cent  of  reworked  wool.  The  soldier  womd 
not  wear  one  out  in  a  three-year  enlistment. 

It  fell  to  my  lot  to  investigate  that  durmg  the  war  for  the 
Quartermaster  General,  and  I  visited  nearly  all  the  permanent 
camps  and  cantonments,  and  talked  with  the  supply  officers,  with 
?rofficers  in  command  of  troops,  and  with  the  soldiers  t^emse^^^^^^ 
as  to  the  length  of  time  that  various  garments  wo^ld  j^st  under 
conditions  to  determine  what  the  rate  of  ^^«^^\  ^^.^^^^^  .^^^^^^ 
for  service  prior  to  the  war  on  the  border  m  actual  fif^  «™^ 
the  estimate  was  that  an  overcoat  should  last  for  from  6  to  7 jears 
I  have  myself  worn  in  military  service  an  overcoat  made  with  a 
large  quantity  of  reworked  wool. 

Senator  Watson.    Of  what  per  cent? 

Mr.  Wood.  I  cannot  tell  you.  I  think  it  was  50  per  cent  They 
changed  it  afterwards.  They  had  it  35  per  cent  for  a  while,  and 
Sards,  on  account  of  the  shortage  of  wool,  fe  Government 
ordered  thkt  they  should  be  made  with  50  per  cent  of  eaxjh  This 
was  a  later  overcoat  that  I  got,  and  I  cannot  tell  you  just  what  the 
proportions  were.  But  I  can  say  from  my  <>bf  J7",  *^^*^^^^ 
wore  very  much  better  than  an  officer's  overcoat  that  I  had  pre- 
viously had,  made  presumably  of  100  per  cent  ^rgin  wool,  but 
which  had  a  much  more  napped  surface.  I  will  refer  to  that  later 
on  as  one  of  the  evidences  of  trouble  in  textile  fabrics  that  the 
troubles  of  the  public  are  very  little  with  the  raw  materials,  but  are 
cMefly  with  other  difficulties  and  faults  than  that  of  the  component 

"^  Senator  Watson.   Well,  I  suppose  that  there  would  enter  into 
that  equation  also  the  character  of  the  shoddy  that  was  used. 

Mr   Wood.    Oh,  certainly,  just  the  same  as  the  character  of  the 

wool.  ^  .    .  1 

Senator  Watson.   Yes;  certainly.  ^     .  .-.    .  ^i.    u«cf 

Mr.  Wood.   Nobody  would  for  a  moment  contend  that  the  best 

shoddy  was  equal  to  the  best  wool.    No  question  about  that 

Senator  Fernald.   I  was  just  about  to  ask  that  question^  No 

one  would  contend  that  the  best  shoddy  was  equal  to  the  best  wool? 

Mr  Wood    Oh,  no,  no.  i  •      -i. 

Senator  Watson.  Now  let  me  ask  you  this.  In  making  it  up,  m 
manufacturing  it,  if  you  take  pure  wool,  or  what  y<>«  fji J^^^^;) 
wool,  '.an  you  make  a  firmer  garment  or  more  durable  garment  by 
admixing  with  it  shoddy  of  a  certain  per  cent? 

Mr  Wood  That  question  could  not  be  answered  ma  general  way. 
The  fabrics  are  of  such  infinite  variety  in  construction  and  design 
that  the  only  answer  I  could  give  would  be  concerning  a  specific  type 
of  fabric.  Now  if  the  cloth  was  one  that  was  not  «^i"^-f^«  .^^^ 
instance  that  you  could  hold  up  to  the  light  and  see  the  hsrht 
Sfough'the  LeSices-then  generally  speaking  weight  for  weight 
the  sfme  number  of  threads  per  square  inch  both  J^  the  wax^  arul 
in  the  weft,  the  fabric  that  was  composed  of  the  best  virgin  wool 
would  be  st;onger  than  the  fabric  that  had  an  admixture  of  the  b^^^ 
virgin  wool  and  the  best  reworked  wool.  Now  that  is  the  nearest 
comprehensive  answer  I  can  make. 


6 


But  the  moment  yon  depart  from  the  best  in  the  one  case  and 
retain  the  best  in  the  other,  or  the  moment  you  change  the  character 
of  the  construction  so  that  you  are  dependent  not  merely  upon  the 
interlacing  of  the  yams,  but  upon  the  interlacing  of  the  fibers  them- 
selves, then  it  might  easily  be  that  you  could  get  a  fabric  composed 
of  part  best  virgin  wool,  part  best  shoddy,  that  would  be  stronger 
than  another  similar  fabric  not  so  milled  and  fulled,  composed 
exclusively  of  virgin  wool.  The  question  is  much  too  broad  to  give 
any  single  answer  to. 

THE  WORTHINESS  OF  ANT  OTHER  FIBER  IS  NOT  CONSIDERED. 

There  is  no  provision  in  this  bill  for  taking  into  account  the 
worthiness  of  any  other  fiber  than  wool.  This  is  a  cloth  which  is 
made  containing  nothing  but  virgin  wool  (exhibiting  sample  of 
cloth  to  the  committee)  except  a  very  small  quantity  of  very  fine 
silk.  These  are  samples  that  were  made  for  use  entirely  in  another 
connection,  some  years  ago,  and  consequently  the  prices  which  I 
have  are  not  relative  to-day  at  all.  The  purpose  of  cloth  of  this 
kind  is  to  give  a  certain  style  effect.  The  yam  is  woven  in  its 
uncolored  state  like  this  (exhibiting  sample  of  yam)  so  that  when 
the  cloth  is  finished  it  is  all  white.  Around  some  of  the  threads 
there  is  twisted  a  fine  silk  thread.  Then  the  entire  finished  cloth 
or  woven  cloth  is  dyed  with  a  dye  that  will  color  the  wool,  but  will 
not  color  the  silk.  That  gives  the  background  of  black  with  the  little 
fine  particles  of  undyed  white  silk  standing  out,  which  gives  it  this 
little  mixture  effect. 

I  will  show  you  another  sample  (exhibiting  sample  to  the  com- 
mittee). The  sample  I  have  given  you  is  one  in  which  you  find 
cotton  thread  is  used  instead  of  silk.    In  the  other  silk  thread  is  used. 

Now,  with  regard  to  the  one  containing  the  silk  thread.  What  I 
want  to  bring  out  is  that  we  make  a  cloth  of  this  kind,  with  the 
silk  in  it,  the  silk  costing  us  $10  a  pound.  Now,  that  is  all  virgin 
wool  except  the  very  fine  specks  which  you  see  through  there,  which 
are  little  specks  of  silk,  and  that  silk  costs  upward  of  $10  a 
pound.  .  .  . 

Now,  this  is  a  sample  of  silk  noils,  worth  25  cents  a  pound,  (ex- 
hibiting sample  to  the  committee).  That  is  also  pure  silk.  Silk  noils 
are  a  substitute  for  wool;  sometimes  cheaper  than  good  grades  of 
shoddv,  the  pure  silk.  That  can  be  used  in  the  same  way  that 
shoddy  is,  as  a  cheapener  for  woolen  fabric.  Thirty  per  cent  of 
that  could  be  put  into  a  cloth  with  70  per  cent  of  virgin  wool.  Now, 
that  cloth  would  be  labeled  70  per  cent  virgin  wool  and  30  per  cent 
silk,  and  sold  at  a  price  the  third  part  of  the  one  which  I  just 
showed  you  containing  the  fine  silk  threads,  which  cloth  would  be, 
say,  99  per  cent  virgin  wool  and  slightly  less  than  1  per  cent  of  silk. 

Now,  gentlemen,  that  is  one  of  the  many  reasons  why  I,  as  a 
manufacturer  of  virgin  wool  fabrics,  object  to  this  bill.  The  public 
has  certain  prejudices  favorable  to  some  articles  and  prejudices 
unfavorable  to  others.  There  is  a  prejudice  in  favor  of  silk.  The 
implication  carried  by  a  label  saying  30  per  cent  silk  as  against 
another  saying  1  per  cent  silk  would  be  that  this  is  a  very  good 
fabric,  the  one  containing  the  30  per  cent  of  silk.    And  yet  that  is 


^^'V- 


only  used  to  reduce  the  cost  of  the  material,  mixed  in  with  the 
wool.  ... 

DIFFICULT  FOR  LAY   MIND  TO   GRASP   INTRICACIES  OF  MANUFACTURE. 

Senator  Watson.  Of  course  it  is  a  little  difficult  for  the  lay 
mind  to  grasp  at  once  all  the  intricacies  of  manufacture. 

Mr.  Wood.  Yes;  but  just  think  how  difficult  it  is  for  the  con- 
sumer to  form  any  conclusion  from  a  mere  label  of  70  per  cent 
virgin  wool  and  30  per  cent  silk,  or  70  per  cent  virgin  wool  and  30 
per  cent  reworked  wool.  That  is  our  whole  contention,  that  that 
information  conveys  absolutely  nothing  of  any  value  to  the  con- 
sumer. 

Senator  Watson.  Well,  it  would  be  difficult  for  him  to  grasp 
the  idea  of  a  tag  which  said  100  per  cent  virgin  wool. 

Mr.  Wood.  Yes,  certainly,  because  100  per  cent  virgin  wool  would 
mean  to  him,  by  the  very  fact  that  Congress  enacts  this  law,  that 
that  constitutes  something  more  worthy  than  anything  which  does 
not  have  100  per  cent  virgin  wool,  and  yet  it  may  be  wool  of  a  very 
inferior  quality,  or  a  considerable  part  of  it  may  be  wool  of  a 
very  inferior  quality.  There  might  be  of  the  total  weight  of  the 
fabric  easily  30  per  cent  of  noils.  There  might  be  possibly  40  per 
cent  of  noils  and  some  of  these  other  things  which  I  have  shown  you. 
The  fabric  might  be  inherently  weak.  It  would  be  just  as  attractive 
as  a  fabric  made  of  virgin  wool.  From  the  fact  that  it  is  labeled 
virgin  wool,  the  customer  has  a  right  to  expect  that  it  has  some 
superior  quality,  or  Congress  would  not  have  made  this  law,  and 
he  buys  it  on  the  face  of  that,  and  yet  that  fabric,  with  30  per  cent 
or  35  per  cent  of  noils,  may  be  very  much  less  durable  and  less 
strong  than  another  fabric  composed  of  70  per  cent  or  65  per  cent 
of  virgin  wool  and  30  per  cent  or  35  per  cent  of  the  best  shoddy.  Of 
that  there  is  no  question.  , 

The  manufacturers  of  goods  for  which  reworked  wool  is  required 
as  a  component,  cannot  withhold  the  fact  from  their  customers,  for 
these  buyers  are  necessarily  skilled  experts  entirely  competent  to 
determine  the  intrinsic  worth  of  the  fabrics  they  purchase.  And  in 
the  long  interval  between  the  purchase  and  delivery  they  have  and 
exercise  ample  opportunity  to  subject  the  samples  to  such  test  as 
they  may  care  to  apply. 

the  bearing  of  that  is  this,  that  it  has  been  asserted  over  and 
over  again  by  witnesses  for  this  bill,  that  manufacturers  sell  their 
goods  composed  of  shoddy  at  the  same  price  that  they  sell  similar 
fabrics  made  of  virgin  wool.  The  manufacturers  sell  their  goods 
at  wholesale.  Their  customers  are  experts.  It  is  perfectly  absurd  to 
suppose  that  any  expert  buyer  in  a  wholesale  way,  whose  busii>ess 
depends  on  his  skill  in  judging  and  selecting  his  fabrics,  would 
pay  as  much  for  unworthy  fabrics  as  he  would  for  worthy 
ones.  ... 

impossible  to  tell  accurately  by  tests  proportion  OF   COM- 
PONENT MATERIALS. 

Senator  Watson.    Can  they  determine  from  that  whether  it  is 
virgin  wool  or  shoddy? 


8 


Mr.  Wood.   No;  No. 

Senator  Watson.    Can  they  determine  by  this  stretching  process 
whether  it  is  virgin  wool  or  shoddy? 
Mr.  Wood.   No. 

Senator  Watson.  How  do  you  determine  whether  it  is  virgin 
wool  or  shoddy? 

Mr.  Wood.  The  only  possible  way  is  to  subject  the  fabric  to 
microscopic  examination  by  disintegrating  the  cloth  first,  and  then 
taking  each  thread,  or  enough  threads  for  the  purpose,  and  making 
the  microscopic  examination.  They  could  do  it  with  probably  three 
or  four  square  inches  of  fabric.  They  would  unravel  those  threads 
carefully  and  separate  all  those  fibers  out. 

Senator  Watson.  They  cannot  determine  it  by  a  chemical  test, 
can  they? 

Mr.  Wood.   No. 

Senator  Watson.  Because  wool  is  wool? 

Mr,  Wood.  Because  wool  is  wool,  and  subject  to  the  same  reaction 
and  the  same  solvents,  whether  it  is  new  or  old.  They  can  distin- 
guish between  any  vegetable  or  animal  fiber  by  a  chemical  test. 

Senator  Watson.  Well,  when  they  come  to  tearing  it  to  pieces 
then  can  they  tell  relatively  whether  it  has  been  a  high-grade  quality 
of  shoddy  or  a  low-grade  ? 

Mr.  Wood.  They  can  tell  only  as  to  its  fineness.  When  they  have 
separated  all  these  fibers  and  examined  them  under  the  magnifying 
glass  or  microscope  they  can  see  whether  the  fiber  was  fine,  whether 
it  came  originally  from  fine  wool  sheep,  or  whether  it  came  orig- 
inally from  coarse  wool  sheep,  but  they  cannot  say  any  more  than 
that.  They  cannot  determine  its  other  valuable  or  less  valuable 
qualities  as  a  fiber  for  manufacturing. 

Senator  Watson.  Then  that  is  just  as  far  as  they  can  go  with 
the  test? 

Mr,  Wood.  Absolutely.  I  might  say  in  connection  with  that,  that 
a  year  ago  when  this  subject  was  under  consideration  samples  were 
esjiibited  to  an  expert  microscopic  analyst  to  make  a  determination. 
I  don't  know  whether  this  is  proper  to  put  in,  because  I  cannot 
give  you  the  original  evidence,  but  this  microscopical  expert  asked 
to  know  what  the  components  were,  for  his  guidance,  and  was  told 
that  that  would  not  be  quite  fair;  that  it  would  not  enable  a 
determination  of  his  skill.  So  he  proceeded  and  made  the  analysis 
and  made  the  report.  A  comparison  of  his  expert  microscopic 
examination  with  the  actual  blending  formula  was  made,  and  his 
report  was  in  most  cases  simply  absurd.  It  bore  no  relation  to  facts. 
The  proportion  of  virgin  wool  in  some  eases  was  stated  as  reworked 
wool,  and  in  some  cases  reworked  wool  was  stated  as  virgin  wool. 

offer  to  have  chemists  and  microscopists  test  fabrics. 

And  we  shall  be  very  glad  to  give  a  collection  of  samples  to  your 
committee,  without  any  information  attached  thereto  as  to  the  com- 
ponents, or  with  a  specification  under  seal  and  placed  in  your 
charge,  you  to  send  them  to  the  Bureau  of  Standards  or  the  Bureau 
of  Chemistry,  Department  of  Agriculture,  and  have  their  experts 
make  a  careful  microscopic  and  chemical  analysis  and  report  back 


\M 


A-'    ■  ■■% 


9 


to  you  the  components,  and  when  you  receive  that  you  will  still  have 
in  your  possession  the  actual  information  as  to  the  original  blends, 
and  you  will  see  how  they  come  out  in  their  examination.  We  shall 
be  glad  to  furnish  a  range  of  samples  containing  different  propor- 
tions of  new  and  reworked  wool  and  of  cotton  and  of  silk  and  of 
silk  noils,  such  as  I  have  shown  you  here. 

Senator  Watson.   That  is  very  interesting. 

Mr.  Wood.  Now,  if  either  of  those  bureaus  can  come  within  even 
approximate  accuracy  in  their  estimate  of  the  compositions,  the 
cause  for  the  proponents  will  have  been  very  greatly  helped,  and 
our  cause  will  be  very  greatly  weakened,  and  we  offer  that  test.  .  .  . 

Senator  Fernald.  Mr.  Wood,  could  the  man  who  makes  the 
blend  in  your  factory,  if  the  goods  were  taken  from  him  for  a  year 
and  then  given  to  him  again,  retest  those  goods  and  determine  him- 
self again  the  percentage? 

Mr.  Wood.  No,  sir;  over  and  over  again  mills  making  this  kind 
of  goods  have  made  tests  of  this  kind,  and  they  have  failed.  The  mills 
are  in  very  keen  and  active  competition  with  each  other,  and  it  is 
no  uncommon  thing  in  the  trade  for  the  selling  department  of  one 
mill  to  find  that  some  other  mill  has  a  cloth  that  is  selling 
very  successfully.  They  want  to  know  what  it  is  composed  of,  so 
they  get  a  sample  of  it  in  the  open  market,  and  take  it  back  to  the 
mill  and  have  it  carefully  analyzed  to  determine  what  it  is;  and  in 
the  case  of  these  goods,  which  are  composed  of  partly  new  and 
partly  of  old  wool,  the  guesses  which  the  most  expert  men  whom 
the  mills  have  make  are  usually  wide  of  the  mark,  and  sometimes 
ludicrously  wide.  ^ 

It  does  not  make  any  difference  how  skillful  we  are,  all  we  can  do 
is  to  separate  those  yams  into  their  component  fibers,  look  at  them 
under  the  microscope,  and  make  our  best  guess  as  to  what  those 
fibers  are. 

Now,  you  have  got  a  great  many  fibers  there.  You  are  only 
examining  the  billionth  part  of  the  larger  piece  of  cloth  which 
would  be  offered  in  commerce.  It  is  an  absurdly  small  quantity. 
And  we  pick  those  out  and  separate  the  fibers,  and  we  think  maybe 
this  one  is  wool  and  maybe  this  one  is  reworked  wool,  and  so  on, 
and  then  we  count  up  the  number  of  fibers  of  each,  and  then 
we  say  there  is  so  much  of  each  out  of  100  per  cent,  and  that  is 
our  guess. 

There  are  experts  who  have  been  doing  that  all  of  their  lives,  and 
we  can  bring  them  here  and  they  will  tell  you  that  the  best  they 
can  do  is  to  make  a  crude  guess.  And  they  are  men  who  are  doing 
this  thing  and  doing  it  as  a  business.  A  man  who  undertakes  to  do 
that  thing  in  a  laboratory,  with  nothing  but  a  laboratory  experience, 
could  not  begin  to  come  as  close  to  it  as  a  practical  man,  who  is 
trying  to  do  well  on  the  selling  market  and  prepare  something  that 
he  will  share  in  the  success  of. 

the  foreign  manufacturer  would  be  greatly  helped  by  the 

proposed  law. 

Senator  Watson.  Now,  talking  about  the  practical  side  of  the 
matter.    This  bill  provides  that  any  foreign  manufacturer  who  de- 


10 


sires  to  sell  in  America  shall  obtain  a  permit  from  the  Secretary 
of  Commerce  before  his  goods  shall  be  permitted  to  come  into  the 
United  States.    You  understand  that? 

Mr.  Wood.    That  is  foreign  goods? 

Senator  Watson.  Yes;  foreign  goods.  Now  the  foreigner  might 
put  into  a  piece  of  cloth,  which  might  be  made  into  a  suit  of 
clothes  according  to  your  testimony,  70  per  cent  of  virgin  wool  and 
30  per  cent  of  shoddy,  and  when  that  came  over  into  this  country 
there  would  be  practically  no  way  of  telling  that,  would  there? 

Mr.  Wood.  No,  sir;  there  would  not  be  any  way  of  telling  that 
with  any  degree  of  accuracy. 

Senator  Watson.  Yes.  Now,  you  manufacture  in  Philadelphia. 
There  would  be  an  expert  going  through  your  mill  from  the  United 
States  Government.  We  would  have  no  authority,  of  course,  to  send 
experts  through  any  foreign  miU. 

Mr.  Wood.  Yes;  that  is  true.  We  would  have  no  authority  to 
send  experts  through  foreign  mills. 

Senator  Watson.  And  you  right  there  in  your  factory,  if  you 
are  making  a  piece  of  cloth  in  your  factory,  know  what  is  going  into 
it,  do  you  not,  whether  it  is  virgin  wool  or  shoddy? 

Mr.  Wood.   Yes;  surely. 

Senator  Watson.  Or  what  per  cent  of  virgin  wool  there  is  in  the 
cloth,  and  what  per  cent  of  shoddy  there  is  in  that  cloth? 

Mr.  Wood.   Yes. 

Senator  Watson.  Therefore  you  would  be  compelled  under  oath 
to  make  a  statement  as  to  the  component  parts  of  that  piece  of 
cloth.  Might  you  then  come  into  competition  in  the  open  market 
with  goods  of  the  same  character  from  abroad  with  a  tag  attached 
to  the  piece  of  goods  that  did  not  correctly  represent  the  character 
of  the  goods? 

Mr.  Wood.  That  is  so  true,  Senator  Watson,  that  I  have  already 
asked  Mr.  Gifford,  who  makes  some  of  the  finest  goods  made  in  the 
world,  and  who  comes  directly  in  competition  with  foreign  fabric, 
to  explain  to  you  that  very  fact. 

Senator  Watson.  In  other  words,  what  I  am  trying  to  get  at  is 
this:  If  there  be  no  tag — and  that  is  one  of  the  things  we  are  in- 
quiring about — ^if  there  be  no  tag  by  which  the  quality  or  the  quan- 
tity of  the  component  parts  of  the  goods  can  be  determined,  how  is 
this  law  to  be  administered? 

Mr.  Wood.  There  is  no  way  that  I  can  see,  so  far  as  the  foreigner 
is  concerned.  So  far  as  the  American  manufacturer  is  concerned 
the  Government  can  put  inspectors  in  the  mill,  as  it  did  during  the 
war,  and  the  inspectors  can  actually  see  the  blends  made.  And  the 
inspectors  can  see  that  the  labels  correspond  with  their  own  observa- 
tion of  manufacture,  there  is  no  doubt  about  that.  It  will  cost  a 
very  vast  sum.  And  that  will  be  the  eventual  result.  That  is. 
briefly,  what  some  of  the  members  of  the  House  committee  developed 
in  the  testimony  last  year,  that  whenever  you  impose  upon  a  Gov- 
ernment bureau  a  duty  to  make  certain  kinds  of  inspections,  that  it 
becomes  an  inevitable  obligation  upon  the  part  of  that  bureau, 
there  is  only  one  way  to  proceed,  and  that  is  to  discharge  their 
duty. 

Now,  in  order  to  make  sure  that  the  manufacturers  will  put 


W 


.^  ■fm^ 


11 


the  labels  upon  those  goods,  without  chance  of  error,  the  only  way 
is  to  examine  the  goods  in  the  process  of  manufacture,  as  the  War 
Department  did  during  the  war,  and  ascertain  what  the  blends  are. 

FOREIGN     manufacturer    WOULD    ESCAPE    PUNISHMENT    FOR 

MISBRANDING. 

Now,  with  the  foreign  manufacturer  you  can  reach  the  American 
agent  through  whom  he  sells,  but  the  American  agent  protects  him- 
self under  the  provision  of  the  law,  by  getting  a  written  statement 
from  the  manufacturer  as  to  what  the  components  are.  And  he  is 
released  right  away.  He  says,  "I  am  selling  these  goods  in  good  faith. 
I  have  procured  a  written  statement  from  the  manufacturer  which 
savs  that  these  are  the  components  of  these  goods." 

Senator  Watson.  Well,  would  there  be  anything  about  a  piece  of 
cloth  or  a  suit  of  clothes  that  the  importer  of  a  foreign  product 
would  receive  that  would  lead  you,  as  we  say  in  law,  conclusively  to 
presume  that  he  did  know  what  was  in  it? 

Mr.  Wood.  No,  sir;  absolutely  not.  He  only  knows  the  merit  of 
the  doth  as  a  piece  of  merchandise  to  sell,  without  any  knowledge 
of  its  component  or  constituent  parts,  and  gentlemen  there  who  are 
engaged  in  the  selling  of  such  merchandise  in  the  United  States  will 
tell  you  that  in  general  the  man  who  sells  the  merchandise  does  not 
concern  himself  with  the  component  parts.  The  material  is  not  the 
important  thing.  The  style  and  feel  and  the  handle  and  the  strength 
and  the  durability  of  the  fabric  are  the  important  things,  and  if  you 
get  strength,  durability,  style,  finish,  general  handle  of  the  cloth 
that  is  satisfactory  to  the  buyer,  the  buyer  does  not  care  what  it  is 
made  of.  He  is  after  the  results,  not  after  a  theory  as  to  what  will 
constitute  the  right  things.  .  .  . 

But  on  the  point  that  you  make,  the  American  handler  of  the 
goods  could  have  no  knowledge  of  his  own.  He  would  naturally  dis- 
claim knowledge.  He  protects  himself  by  the  written  statement  of 
the  foreign  manufacturer.  If  that  written  statement  is  at  variance 
with  the  facts  there  is  no  way  in  which  the  United  States  can  en- 
force by  a  penalty  the  provisions  of  the  act  against  a  foreigner 
over  whom  they  have  no  jurisdiction.  There  is  no  way  by  which  that 
can  be  accomplished  that  I  know  of. 

Senator  Watson.  There  is  no  way,  of  course,  if  there  be  no  test 
by  which  you  can  tell  whether  it  is  a  virgin  wool  or  shoddy. 

Mr.  Wood.  There  is  no  such  test.  But  even  apart  from  that,  sup- 
pose the  Bureau  of  Standards  makes  an  examination  and  says,  "This 
cloth,  which  is  branded  70  per  cent  virgin  wool  and  30  per  cent 
shoddy,  contains  only  60  per  cent  virgin  wool  and  40  per  cent 
shoddy";  suppose  they  are  willing  to  certify  to  that.  Now,  where 
are  you  going  to  get  the  maker?  You  go  first  of  all  to  the  man  who 
sold  the  goods  in  this  country,  the  American  house,  and  he  says, 
"Here  is  my  written  statement  from  the  manufacturer  in  Bradford, 
England,  that  it  was  70  per  cent  of  virgin  wool  and  30  per  cent 
of  shoddy."  "Well,"  the  Government  says,  "here  is  the  statement 
of  the  Bureau  of  Standards  that  it  is  60  per  cent  virgin  wool  and 
40  per  cent  shoddy."  "Well,"  he  says,  "the  law  exonerates  me  en- 


tirely  if  I  get  a  statement  from  the  manufacturer  as  to  its  component 
parts." 

What  are  you  going  to  do  about  it?  You  cannot  go  over  to 
Bradford  and  get  the  manufacturer. 

Senator  Watson.  No,  the  only  thing  they  could  possibly  do,  if 
they  accept  the  analysis  of  the  Bureau  of  Standards,  would  be  to 
exclude  it  from  this  country. 

Mr.  Wood.  Well,  how  are  you  going  to  exclude  it?  It  might 
come  through  any  number  of  intermediate  hands.  You  can  exclude 
that  product  so  far  as  it  may  be  sold  by  one  particular  man,  but 
you  cannot  identify  that  product  that  is  sold  by  any  one  of  scores 
of  other  dealers.  ' 


ASSERTIONS  ABOUT  INCREASED  USE  OF  SHODDY  WITHOUT  SIGNIFICANCE. 

Statistics  have  been  presented  here  to  fortify  the  assertion  that 
there  is  a  tendency  toward  a  greatly  increased  use  of  shoddy  in 
woolen  clothing  sold  in  the  United  States.  These  figures  are  entirely 
without  significance  because  of  the  changing  conditions  under 
which  the  business  is  done  and  the  absence  of  information  regarding 
the  components  of  the  quantities  reported  in  various  years.  For- 
merly, the  preparation  of  reworked  wool  in  the  mills  in  which  the 
stock  was  employed,  was  for  manufacture  into  yarns  or  goods,  and 
a  relatively  small  quantity  was  sold  and  bought  as  an  article  of 
commerce. 

Gradually  the  work  of  preparing  the  stock  for  the  mills  developed 
into  a  separate  business,  those  specializing  in  it  being  able  to  do 
the  work  for  many  mills  more  economically  and  more  uniformly 
than  each  could  for  itself  the  quantities  it  alone .  needed.  With  the 
segregation  of  the  business  the  statistics  relating  to  it  have  become 
more  complete.  The  shoddy  of  commerce  as  blended  ready  for  the 
use  of  the  mills  may  often  contain  ingredients  that  under  the 
pending  bill  would  be  classed  as  virgin  wool.  For  these  reasons, 
as  also  because  of  the  necessities  of  the  war,  which  are  fully  ex- 
plained in  the  report  quoted — that  is  the  report  of  the  Federal 
Trade  Commission — ^the  statistics  of  total  sales  of  shoddy  warrant  no 
inferences  of  an  increasing  use  of  reworked  wool  in  civilian  cloth- 
ing. 

There  are,  however,  quite  conclusive  indications  of  a  relative  de- 
crease in  the  use  of  reworked  wool  in  the  United  States. 

Senator  Watson.    Now  why  do  you  say  that,  Mr.  Wood? 

Mr.  Wood.    I  am  going  to  try  to  show  it  to  you. 

Since  the  source  is  rags  and  clips,  the  domestic  proportion  of  clips 
and  rags  being  necessarily  proportionate  to  the  consumption  of 
clothing,  it  follows  that  any  material  increase  in  consumption 
would  mean  an  increase  in  imports  of  rags  and  clips,  and  that 
any  decrease  in  importation  or  increase  in  exportation  of  rags  and 
clips  would  mean  a  decrease  in  their  domestic  use.  Unlike  agri- 
cultural crops,  there  is  no  other  way  in  which  increased  domestic 
use  can  be  provided  for  except  by  either  increasing  imports  or 
decreasing  exports.  Now  the  facts  are  that  at  one  time  we  exported 
no   woolen  rags   and  imported  very  large   quantities,   whereas   in 


-#*>'> 


i 


13 


recent  years  very  great  quantities  have  been  exported  and 
little  or  none  suitable  for  fabric  manufacture  have  been  imported. 

Some  rags  have  been  imported  for  paper  and  felt  manufacture, 
but  not  for  fabric  manufacture.  I  do  not  think  this  aspect  of  the 
matter  is  of  particular  importance,  however,  for  whether  much 
or  little  is  used  it  is  the  economic  advantage  of  the  country  that 
they  be  used. 

I  want  to  call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to  the  fact  that 
the  statistics  as  to  the  production  of  shoddy  in  separate  shoddy 
mills  cannot  justify  any  inference  as  to  an  increased  use  of  shoddy 
in  the  clothing  of  the  people.  .  .  . 

Mr.  Wood.  Woolen  underwear  is  almost  exclusively  made  of 
mixtures  of  wool  and  cotton. 

NO  ANALOGY  BETWEEN   BILL  AND   PURE-FOOD   LAWS. 

.  Reference  has  frequently  been  made  to  the  analogy  between 
the  pending  measure  and  the  pure-food  laws.  But  there  are  very 
important  differences.  The  pure-food  laws  are  chiefly  concerned 
with  the  prevention  of  mixing  with  or  substituting  for  food  pro- 
ducts substances  which  are  either  harmful  or,  if  not  actually 
deleterious,  are  without  food  value.  This  bill  is  aimed  at  mate- 
rials which  have  useful  clothing  value  and  which  are  not  deleterious 
to  health. 

In  the  pure-food  law  there  is  not  imposed  the  necessity  for 
applying  to  good  and  useful  materials  a  name  which,  by  reason  of 
long  use  as  a  term  of  contempt  applied  to  many  things  other  than 
textiles,  has  become  a  synonym  for  unworthiness. 

Senator  Watson.  Now,  before  you  go  into  the  next  point, 
Mr.  Wood,  let  me  ask  you  this  general  question  that  is  on  my 
mind.  You  say  you  manufacture  worsteds  altogether? 

Mr.  Wood.  Yes. 

Senator  Watson.    And  they  are  made  of  virgin  wool  altogether? 

Mr.  Wood.    Yes. 

Senator  Watson.    And  no  shoddy? 

Mr.  Wood.  Yes;  that  is  right. 

Senator  Watson.  What  objections  have  you  to  putting  a  tag 
on  that  to  that  effect? 

Mr.  Wood.  I  am  coming  to  that.  I  will  show  you  one  objection.  I 
showed  you  one  in  connection  with  these  silk  noils — that  a  man  can 
sell  you  a  very  cheap  fabric  and  say  that  he  is  giving  you  30  per 
cent  silk  and  70  per  cent  wool,  and  that  fabric  is  cheaper  than 
mine  which  has  only  1  per  cent  of  silk  in  it.  He  is  selling  that 
fabric,  which  is  cheap  as  against  a  very  superior  fabric  of  mine 
which  has  only  1  per  cent  of  silk  in  it,  and  by  reason  of  that 
labeling  required  by  law,  the  buyer  thinks  he  is  getting  greater 
value  in  those  cheaper  goods. 

Senator  Watson.    In  the  30  per  cent  silk? 

Mr.  Wood.    Yes. 

The  cost  of  legislation  of  this  kind  will  of  course  be  an  expense 
to  the  public.  There  will  be  the  actual  expense  of  applying  the 
branding,  and  an  increase  in  the  unit  allocation  of  overhead,  due 
to  the  slowing  up  of  outturn;  and  increase  in  the  price  of  wool, 


y 


14 


if  the  measure  accomplishes  the  hope  and  expectation  of  its 
sponsors;  all  of  which  will  necessarily  enhance  the  price  of  the 
products. 

In  addition  to  these  direct  costs  to  the  consumer,  the  public  who 
are  the  consumers,  must  pay  in  taxes  the  Government's  expense 
for  administration  and  inspection,  which  members  of  the  House 
committee  at  the  hearing  last  year,  estimated  would  reach  a  great 

sum. 

This  large  aggregate  cost,  serious  and  objectionable  as  it  would 
be,  might  be  justified  if  the  public  received  any  tangible  benefit. 
But  would  be  wholly  unwarranted  if,  as  we  know,  the  actual  result 
would  be  to  mislead  the  public  by  placing  a  false  emphasis  upon 
the  significance  of  the  term  *Sdrgin  wool." 

THE    ^*^RIGHT    TO    KNOW''    INCLUDES    MANY    THINGS. 

An  analysis  of  all  the  statements  that  have  been  made  by  witnesses 
in  support  of  the  bill  shows  that  they  comprise  four  basic  con- 
tentions: X.      1     .  i.     •    1 

First,  that  the  purchaser  has  the  right  to  know  of  what  materials 
the  article  offered  for  sale  is  composed. 

Second,  that  goods  containing  reworked  wool  are  sold  for  the 
same  price  as  goods  otherwise  of  like  kind  and  quality  composed 
entirely  of  virgin  wool,  the  manufacturer  profiting  by  the  difference 
in  cost  of  the  cheaper  raw  material.  , .  ,      .  .  • 

Third,  that  the  fault  of  goods  and  garments  which  give  unsatis- 
factory wear  is  in  the  presence  of  shoddy. 

Fourth,  that  the  branding  will,  because  of  a  belief  in  the  supe- 
rior merit  of  virgin  wool,  create  a  larger  dem  md  for  virgin  wool 
to  the  advantage  of  the  growers  of  wool. 

Let  us  briefly  examine  these  basic  assertions  which,  in  varying 
form  of  statement,  constitute  the  entire  argument  for  compulsory 

branding.  j>     ^    .  .^. 

No  one  will  question  the  right  of  a  buyer  to  know  ot  what  the 
article  is  made  that  is  submitted  for  his  purchase.  He  has  also  the 
right  to  know  many  other  facts  of  even  greater  importance  in  the 
determination  of  its  worth  and  durability.  In  the  case  of  a  woolen 
garment  he  has  the  right  to  know  whether  the  goods  contain  noils; 
also  the  quality  of  the  fiber  of  the  wool,  upon  the  length  and 
strength  of  which  depends  the  durability  of  the  cloth  much  more 
than  upon  whether  it  is  or  is  not  wholly  of  virgin  wool;  that  is, 
he  has  the  right  to  know  in  a  vii^in-wool  fabric  what  proportion 
is  of  these  short  noils ;  he  has  the  right  to  know  whether  the  threads 
are  single  or  two-ply,  a  very  important  factor  in  durability. 

There  is  a  pure  worsted  fabric  known  as  a  shepherd  check 
(exhibiting  sample  to  the  committee).  That  means  the  style  of 
design.  That  is  made  of  nothing  but  virgin  wool  from  which  these 
noils  have  been  taken  out. 

This  is  a  sample  of  an  identical  weight  (exhibiting  sample  to  the 
committee)  made  by  a  distinguished  competitor  of  mine,  who  is 
in  the  room  here,  and  for  whom  I  have  very  great  respect,  which 
he  can  sell  for  probably  25  cents  a  yard  less  than  I  can  sell  mine 
for.  I  will  venture  to  say  that  none  of  you  will  be  able  to  dis- 


^    > 


15 


cover  the  difference  between  those  two  samples.  They  are  both  of 
virgin  wool,  100  per  cent  virgin  wool. 

Senator  Watson.  I  would  not  know  the  difference.  Tell  us 
what  the  difference  is. 

Mr.  Wood.  The  difference  is  that  in  mine  the  warp  is  two-ply 
and  the  weft  is  two-ply,  and  in  his  the  warp  is  two-ply  and  the 
weft  is  single  yarn.  The  weft  way  of  my  cloth  is  very  much  stronger. 
His  is  a  perfectly  good  and  useful  cloth,  at  the  price,  but  it  is 
worth  just  as  much  less  as  the  difference  in  strength  transversely. 

Now,  I  ought  to  come  down  here  and  weep  a  little  bit  on  the 
shoulder  of  Congress  and  ask  that  they  provide  in  the  labeling  bill 
that  every  manufacturer  must  state  whether  his  fabric  is  made  of  two- 
ply  yarn  or  of  one-ply  yarn.  I  have  just  as  great  a  grievance 
against  the  manufacturer  who  makes  a  one-ply  yam  against  my 
two-ply  yam  as  the  wool  grower  has  against  the  man  who  uses 

shoddy. 

Senator  Watson.  How  much  does  he  sell  his  for?  For  the 
same  price  that  you  sell  yours? 

Mr.  Wood.  No  ;  he  sells  his  for  25  cents  less.  Of  course  no  manu- 
facturer can  sell  a  fabric  which  it  takes  appreciably  less  to  make 
for  the  same  price  that  a  manufacturer  can  sell  a  fabric  of  higher 
quality  for,  in  spite  of  everything  to  the  contrary  that  has  been 
said  on  the  subject. 

Senator  Fernald.  The  buyer  who  buys  those  different  cloths 
can  tell  the  difference? 

Mr.  Wood.  The  expert  buyer  must  know  the  difference.  For 
one  thing,  he  would  test  it  in  his  testing  machine  for  strength. 
Another  thing,  he  would  unravel  them  and  see  whether  they  are 
single  or  doulDle. 

Senator  Fernald.    So  there  is  no  imposition  on  him? 

Mr.  Wood.  No;  there  is  no  imposition  on  him.  But  when  that 
is  made  up  into  a  suit  of  clothing  and  it  is  offered  to  you,  you  can 

not  tell. 

Senator  Watson.   But  yet  they  are  both  made  of  100  per  cent 

of  wool. 

Mr.  Wood.  Yes,  sir;  both  of  those  samples  are  made  of  fine 
wool,  100  per  cent  wool,  better  than  the  mere  virgin  wool,  because 
all  the  noils  are  taken  out.  Some  of  those  people  who  advocate  the 
bill  keep  all  their  noils  in  the  wool. 

Senator  Watson.  Now,  do  they  mean  by  virgin  wool,  that 
the  noils  are  not  taken  out? 

Mr.  Wood,  Yes;  they  mean  by  virgin  wool  the  wool  just  as 
it  is  scoured  of  the  dirt,  with  both  the  long  fibers  and  the  noils. 

Senator  Watson.   Yes. 

Mr.  Wood.  Their  stuff  has  got  the  short  stock  in  it.  The  worsted 
manufacturer  has  the  short  stock  taken  out. 

AN  illimitable  FIELD  OF  LEGISLATION  WOULD  BE  OPENED. 

It  is  also  the  right  of  the  buyer  to  know  whether  there  are  the 
proper  number  of  threads  to  the  square  inch;  if  not,  the  cloth 
will  give  way  at  the  seams.  A  very  important  fault,  because  the 


16 


cloth  is  not  closely  woven  enough  for  that  particular  type  of 
fabric.  He  also  has  the  right  to  know  whether  the  cloth  has  been 
properiy  milled  and  shrunk  and  has  not  been  so  stretched  in  tenter- 
ing  that  when  exposed  to  dampness  it  will  shrink  in  size  and  go 
out  of  shape. 

He  also  has  the  right  to  know  whether  the  dyes  are  fast  to 
sunlight,  to  rain,  and  perspiration.  He  has  the  right  to  know 
whether  the  interlining  is  of  genuine  or  of  imitation  haircloth. 
He  has  the  right  to  know  whether  the  canvas — so-called  canvas — 
is  made  of  linen  or  jute  or  cotton.  Whether  the  linings  are  of  cotton, 
mohair,  silk,  or  imitation  silk.  These,  and  many  other  factors, 
are  more  important  in  the  determination  of  value  and  durability 
than  a  specification  of  virgin  wool  without  explanation  of  the 
kind  of  virgin  wool. 

Equally,  too,  the  buyer  has  the  right  to  know  the  particulars  about 
all  other  things  he  buys;  the  components  of  his  tools,  whether  or 
not  there  is  scrap  iron  in  the  hardware,  whether  his  mahogany 
desk  is  made  of  real  mahogany  or  what  is  commonly  called 
mahogany;  what  his  shoes  are  composed  of  besides  leather;  how 
much  rubber  is  in  his  overshoes;  whether  the  spokes  of  his  auto- 
mobile are  hickory,  oak,  or  pine;  what  is  in  linen  paper,  besides 
linen. 

Why,  the  field  is  illimitable,  and  if  it  is  the  duty  of  Congress  to 
enact  laws  that  will  automatically  inform  him  of  everything  he 
has  the  right  to  know,  Congress  can  never  discharge  that  duty. 
The  right  to  knowledge  is  one  thing.  The  manner  of  its  acquisi- 
tion is  another.  The  latter  must  chiefly  depend  upon  the  efforts 
of  the  individual  seeker  of  knowledge. 

The  claim  that  manufacturers  sell  goods  made  wholly  or  in  part 
of  reworked  wool  for  the  same  price  as  goods  of  the  identical  kind, 
construction,  and  finish  made  wholly  of  new  wool  hardly  needs 
serious  consideration.  It  refutes  itself  by  its  impossibility.  If  it 
were  true  the  profit  in  the  manufacture  of  such  goods  would  be  so 
great  that  there  would  be  no  pecuniary  inducement  to  make  any 
goods  of  virgin  wool. 

You  will  realize  that  if  goods  made  of  shoddy,  cheap,  worthless 
things,  could  be  sold  for  the  same  price  as  goods  100  per  cent 
virgin  wool,  goods  such  as  I  make,  it  would  be  folly  for  me  to  go 
on  making  them  of  the  kind  that  I  do  make.  The  pure  worsted 
industrv"  would  go  out  of  existence  instead  of  having  in  the  last 
fifty  years  grown  from  nothing  to  its  present  vast  proportions, 
producing  the  larger  part  of  the  suiting  materials  now  in  use,  and 
exceeding  in  value  of  its  output  the  carded  wool  business,  the  older 
branch. 

DISTINCTION  BETWEEN  WOOLEN  AND  WORSTED  INDUSTRIES. 

The  wool  manufacturing  industry  is  broadly  divided  into  two 
great  branches,  according  to  the  system  or  method  of  manufacture. 
The  older  form  is  known  as  the  carding  and  the  other  as  the 
worsted  branch.  Time  will  not  permit  me  to  describe  in  detail  the 
differences  between  them.  The  primary  distinction  is  in  the  process 
of  making  yams.    There  are  also  fundamental  differences  in  weav- 


17 


ing,  but  in  the  latter  the  distinctions  are  not  so  complete.  It  is  in 
the  yarns  made  by  the  carding  process  that  reworked  wools  are 
used.  In  worsted  yarns  it  can  be  very  positively  stated  no  shoddy 
is  employed. 

Senator  Watson.   Now,  let  me  ask  you  right  there  why  you 

cannot  employ  shoddy?   Why? 

Mr.  Wood.   Why  we  cannot  use  it  in  worsted  yam? 

Senator  Watson.   Yes. 

Mr.  Wood.  Because  it  is  too  unsuited  for  the  combing  machine. 
There  would  be  too  much  of  it  wasted  out  by  the  same  mechanical 
methods  that  take  out  the  noils. 

Senator  Watson.    But  that  can  be  used  in  the  carding  machine? 

Mr.  Wood.   Yes;  the  carding  machine  can  use  a  shorter  fiber. 

Senator  Watson.   Yes;  I  understand. 

Mr.  Wood.  Shoddy  cannot  be  used  in  the  manufacture  of  worsted 
yarns  for  the  same  reason  that  the  various  wool  noils  cannot  be  used. 

Prior  to  1860  we  had  no  worsted  industry,  the  woolen  manufac- 
ture of  the  country  was  exclusively  by  the  carding  process,  the  one 
that  can  use  shoddy.  Since  1860  the  entire  worsted  industry  of  the 
country  in  its  present  magnitude  has  been  created.  Partly  as  new 
installation,  partly  by  conversion  of  old  mills  into  worsted  mills,  by 
the  substitution  of  worsted  machinery  for  woolen.  This  would  have 
been  altogether  impossible  if  the  manufacturers  of  shoddy  goods 
could  sell  their  fabrics  for  the  price  of  those  like  kinds  made  of  new 
wool.  In  the  same  period  there  has  been  a  progressive  decline  in  the 
relative  production  of  many  kinds  of  goods  made  by  the  old  carded 
process.  The  change  has  been  somewhat  analogous  to  the  growth  of 
the  steel  industry  at  the  expense  of  iron.  There  are  some  purposes 
for  which  the  carded  fabrics  still  have  a  preference,  just  as  some 
articles  are  still  made  of  iron,  but  a  great  portion  of  the  carded 
goods  formerly  made  have  been  as  completely  superseded  by  worsted 
as  most  of  the  things  formerly  made  of  iron  have  been  by  steel 
products.  ...  , 

The  third  allegation  is  that  the  fault  with  poorly  wearing  goods 
is  the  presence  of  shoddy.  Those  who  say  so  have  produced  no 
evidence  whatever;  no  garments  that  have  worn  unsatisfactorily  have 
been  shown  so  that  we  might  ascertain  the  nature  of  the  defects. 

I  feel  that  if  this  was  the  common  fault  of  clothing— the  presence 
of  unrevealed  shoddy— that  the  proponents  of  this  bill  would  have 
been  able  to  bring  many  garments  here  to  show  how  badly  they 
had  worn,  and  then  we  could  examine  them  and  tell  you  about 
them,  either  admit  that  that  was  because  they  were  made  of  shoddy, 
or  we  could  show  you  what  the  fault  was,  if  it  was  not  because  of 
the  presence  of  shoddy.     No  such  examples  have  been  adduced  at 

all. 

I  have  from  time  to  time  been  asked  to  serve  as  arbitrator  m  trade 
commercial  disputes  concerning  unsatisfactory  goods,  and  in  the 
course  of  many  years  have  had  to  review  a  large  number  of  such 
cases  of  controversy  over  defective  goods.  In  none  of  these  cases 
has  the  fault  been  due  to  the  use  of  reworked  wool.  They  have  all 
been  faults  of  stmcture,  or  arising  from  chemical  action  on  sound 
new  fibers,  or  due  to  bad  dyeing,  and  other  causes  in  no  way  in- 
volving the  merits  of  the  raw  material.   Had  I  known  in  time  that 


>      ^ 


18 


I  was  to  discuss  this  subject,  I  could  have  brought  exhibits  to  show 
some  of  the  causes  for  complaints  concerning  woolen  fabrics,  and 
that  they  are  not  due  to  the  use  of  reworked  wool. 

And  right  at  that  point  I  would  like  to  say  that  so  much  has  been 
made  of  this  question  of  durability  that  I  want  to  say  that  if  the 
only  clothes  sold  in  this  cquntry  by  the  retailers  were  sold  on  the 
basis  of  durability,  the  wool  grower,  instead  of  only  growing  half 
the  wool  required  for  the  American  people,  possibly  would  have 
more  than  an  ample  supply.  The  basis  of  the  purchase  of  woolen 
goods  by  most  of  the  purchasers  in  this  country  is  not  the  com- 
ponent of  durability.  It  is  the  factor  of  sightliness  and  style.  If 
durability  is  wanted,  and  if  it  is  the  duty  of  Congress  to  legislate 
to  inform  the  public  what  will  give  the  greatest  durability,  my 
advice  would  be  that  you  proclaim  cotton  corduroy  as  the  most 
durable  fabric  for  men^s  clothing.  Made  exclusively  of  cotton,  it 
is  probably  the  most  durable  of  any  textile  fabric  that  can  be  made 
for  men's  clothing,  for  all  sorts  of  wear  and  hard  usage.  People, 
of  course,  will  not  buy  corduroy  because,  although  it  possesses  the 
merit  of  durability,  it  lacks  the  other  essential  merits  of  style  and 
attractiveness  and  feel  and  handle  which  all  go  to  make  the  value 

of  cloth.  .  11      J   . 

There  remains  to  consider  that  fourth  basic  reason  alleged  in 
support  of  the  bill,  namely,  that  the  branding  of  goods  to  show  the 
components  will  create  an  increased  demand  for  virgin  wool.  If 
this  is  true  it  can  only  be  through  the  capitalizing  of  a  traditional 
prejudice.  The  purchaser  who  has  heretofore  bought  garments  at 
relatively  moderate  prices  which  have  contained  reworked  wool,  to 
obtain  garments  at  the  same  price  made  wholly  of  new  wool  must 
be  content  with  a  poorer  structure  or  poorer  raw  material.  If  out 
of  a  given  price  a  larger  amount  must  be  spent  for  raw  material 
the  structural  design — the  fabrication  must  be  less  expensive  and 
poorer.  If  the  virgin  wool  is  to  cost  no  more  than  the  reworked 
wool  it  replaces,  the  virgin  wool  used  must  be  of  inferior  quality. 
From  one  or  the  other  there  is  no  escape. 

Most  buyers,  the  great  mass  of  the  people,  buy  their  clothing 
according  to  the  price.  They  want  the  best  suit  they  can  buy  for 
$15,  or  for  $20,  or  for  $25.  If  a  man  is  accustomed  to  buy  a  suit 
for  $20  and  have  that  suit  give  sightliness  and  strength  and  durabil- 
ity and  all  of  the  various  things  which  go  to  make  it  desirable  to  the 
purchaser  at  $20,  still,  only  paying  $20,  is  incited  to  demand  only 
virgin  wool,  then  he  must  get  for  that  $20  suit  one  that  is  either  an 
inferior  grade  of  virgin  wool,  one  that  will  be  less  agreeable,  or 
else  he  must  get  an  inferior  structure  of  the  cloth,  which  also  goes 
to  the  question  of  durability. 

In  attributing  the  present  large  surplus  stocks  of  wool  to  the 
use  of  shoddy  the  supporters  of  the  bill  are  not  as  candid  as  such 
ardent  advocates  of  truth  ought  to  be.  They  well  know  that  ac- 
cumulated stocks  are  the  result  of  the  derangements  of  war  whereby 
enemy  countries  were  for  nearly  seven  years  deprived  of  the  large 
amounts  of  raw  wool  they  normally  used.  Deducting  the  amount 
equal  to  what  that  consumption  would  have  been  and  the  world's 
stock  of  wool  would  be  inadequate  for  present  needs.  .  .  . 


X& 


MISSTATEMENTS    BY    PROPONENTS'    WITNESSES    CORRECTED. 

Mr  Wood  I  have  not  been  able  to  hear  all  of  the  testimony,  but 
there  were  a  few  statements  that  I  would  also  like  to  correct  m  the 
record.    Some   of   them   are   material,   but   some   not   particularly 

"^ThesV  corrections  have  more  particular  reference  to  the  value  of 
the  statements  of  the  witness  on  technical  points.  Some  statements 
were  made  in  a  very  confident  manner  which  would  naturally  carry 
to  the  minds  of  the  committee  a  competence  to  testify  on  these 
questions,  unless  the  record  was  corrected.    It  would  only  take  a 

moment  to  take  that  up.  ...  «  n        •    4.^  „o»« 

Quarter-blood  is  much  too  coarse  to  successfully  spm  to  yarn 

of*  42's  count,  and  three-eighths-blood  is  not  fine  enough  to  spin 

yam  of  50's  count.  .        •     ^i,      4.        4.1,  ^4?  +1,0 

Carbonizing  properly  done  does  not  impair  the  strength  ot  the 
fiber;  if  it  did,  a  large  portion  of  the  noils  (which  are  classed  as 
virgin  wool  by  the  bill)  would  be  equally  impaired,  for  they,  too 
have  to  be   carbonized   extensively.    Some  varieties   of  fine   cloth 
made  wholly  of  virgin  wool  require  carbonizing  after  the  tabric  has 

been  woven.  ...  ,  -,  1       1    jj        „u««« 

In  quoting  the  profits  of  shoddy  makers— and  by  shoddy  makers 
I  mean  people  who  convert  clips  and  rags  into  products-the  wit- 
ness neglected  to  state  that  the  percentages  givemn  the  report  were 
of  cross  profit  before  deduction  of  interest,  Federal  taxes,  and 
other  such  financial  items;  also  that  the  business  is  one  of  large 
turnover  in  proportion  to  capital  employed.  It  is  usually  true  that 
businesses  in  which  the  capital  employed  is  small  in  proportion  to 
volume  are  largely  in  the  nature  of  individual  service.  I  knew  ot 
an  instance  of  a  young  man  in  his  first  year  in  business  with  oidy 
the  modest  capital  of  his  savings  who  turned  it  thirty  times,  with 
a  profit  of  but  5  per  cent  on  his  sales  the  return  on  his  capital  was 

150  per  cent  for  that  year.  ,    ,      ,         •        a 

A  sample  of  tender  cloth  was  exhibited,  the  wholesale  price  of 
which  was  given  as  $5  per  yard.  Mr.  Alexander  Walker,  the  lead- 
ing spokesman  for  this  bill,  is  an  expert  m  cloth  values  I  wou  d 
Uke  to  ask  him  whether  cloth  such  as  that  sample  could  be  sold 
anywhere  in  the  United  States  at  $5  a  yard,  or  anywhere  near  that 
fieure  Whatever  may  be  the  fact  with  regard  to  retail  prices,  it  is 
certain  that  those  who  buy  in  a  wholesale  way  would  never  buy  such 

goods  at  such  a  price.  .  v>««-r,«i 

A  serial  number  would  mean  little  to  purchasers  m  remembering 
the  quality  of  previous  purchases.  If  any  identification  is  made  tor 
that  purpose,  it  should  be  the  maker's  name,  not  the  alias  of  a 
number;  and  if  the  name  is  applied,  that  would  afford  a  protection 
which  percentage  statements  of  raw-matenal  content  would  not. 

The  war-time  advance  in  the  price  of  some  grades  of  rags  was 
quoted  as  being  in  some  cases  as  much  as  500  per  cent.  A  reference 
to  the  report  from  which  the  figure  was  quoted  shows  that  the 
average  per  cent  of  advance  was  less  than  the  percentage  of  increase 
in  virgin-wool  prices.  The  exceptions  were  such  things  as  blue  clips 
which  had  a  special  value  for  Government  use  because  they  were 
dyed  with  pre-war  dyes,  did  not  need  redyemg,  at  a  time  when 


I 


20 


dyes  of  equal  quality  were  from  1000  to  2000  per  cent  above 
pre-war  prices. 

There  was  reference  also,  which  caused  some  confusion  I  think, 
to  a  sample  of  fine  wool,  costing  25  cents  per  pound,  and  a  sample 
of  shoddy— Government  khaki— costing  5  cents  per  pound,  and  some 
comparisons  were  made  of  the  cost  of  the  material  content  of  the 
cloths  made  of  these  two  substances.  It  was  not  made  clear  that  for 
the  wool  the  price  named  was  for  wool  in  the  unscoured  state,  and 
the  5-cent  price  was  for  Government  khaki  unskirted.  The  com- 
parison should  be  made  between  the  costs  of  the  two  materials  ready 
for  manufacture,  which  were  probably  about  62  cents  and  15  cents. 
Before  that  could  be  converted  into  shoddy  ready  for  the  machinery 
of  manufacture  like  wool  it  would  have  to  be  put  through  the 
courses  which  have  been  described  by  previous  witnesses,  which 
would  increase  the  price  very  greatly,  so  that  the  5-cent  cost  would 
be  about  15  cents  when  converted  into  shape  ready  for  use. 

Mr.  Wood.  What  I  am  trying  to  state  is  that  the  impress  of 
maker's  name  and  address  on  a  garment  carries  with  it  a  responsi- 
bility upon  his  part  for  all  that  goes  to  male  it  good  afterward.  .  .  . 

WOOL  MAKUFACTURERS   NOT  ANTAGONISTIC   TO  DOMESTIC  WOOL 

GROWERS. 

It  seems  to  be  necessary  to  correct  another  false  impression  that 
has  been  frequently  conveyed  here,  namely,  that  wool  manufac- 
turers are  not  interested  in  the  fostering  of  wool-growing  in  this 
country.  Independently  of  narrow,  economic  interests,  and  on  na- 
tional and  patriotic  grounds,  the  manufacturers  for  years  have 
given  most  substantial  evidence  of  their  earnest  desire  to  maintain 
and  develop  this  industry.  And  speaking  as  their  authorized  repre- 
sentative, I  can  subscribe  to  all  that  has  been  said  in  favor  of  help- 
ing to  make  and  keep  the  American  sheep  industry  prosperous.  I 
know  that  is  the  sentiment  of  substantially  all  wool  manufacturers, 
notwithstanding  the  efforts  which  have  been  made  in  some  quarters 
to  encourage  suspicion,  distrust,  and  animosity  upon  the  part  of 
wool  growers  toward  their  best  customers.  We  should  and  can  easily 
have  in  the  United  States  upward  of  100,000,000  sheep ;  and  if  a 
consistent  national  policy  to  that  end  is  persistently  followed  I  have 
no  doubt  that  we  shall.  But  in  my  judgment  the  kind  of  agitation 
that  is  being  carried  on  in  support  of  compulsory  legislation  for 
wool  manufactures,  and  wool  manufactures  alone,  is  doing  more  to 
postpone  the  revival  of  the  American  sheep  industry  than  almost 
any  other  factor.  .  .  . 


PASSAGE  OF  THE  ROGERS-LODGE  BILL 

ADVOCATED. 


m 

w^ 


The  Rogers-Lodge  bill,  purposely  belittled,  and  misrepresented  by 
the  proponents  of  the  French-Capper  bill  as  simply  a  misbranding 
bill,  would  punish  all  guilty  of  misrepresentation  to  consumers  sell- 
ing any  commodity,  and  would  not  be  restricted  in  its  applications 
alone  to  textiles  containing  shoddy.  Its  passage  in  place  of  the 
French-Capper  bill  was  urged  by  Mr.  John  P.  Wood  who  said: 

Those  for  whom  I  appear  have  for  many  years  been  urging  en- 
actment of  a  law  similar  to  one  that  has  been  in  force  in  Great 
Britain  for  more  than  thirty  years.  The  British  law  is  known  as 
the  Merchandise  Marks  Act.  It  was  designed  to  prevent  and  punish 
misrepresentation  in  connection  with  the  sale  of  all  kinds  of  goods 
and  has  effectually  accomplished  its  purpose.  A  bill  of  this  char- 
acter, modeled  on  the  British  act,  adapted  to  American  conditions, 
has  been  introduced  in  several  Congresses  by  Representative  Rogers 
and  is  now  before  a  committee  of  the  House  of  Representatives.  A 
bill  identical  with  that  of  Mr.  Rogers  was  recently  introduced  in 
the  Senate  by  Senator  Lodge  (S.  1882).  If  this  Rogers-Lodge  bill 
is  enacted  it  will  effectually  safeguard  the  consumer  so  far  as  it  is 
in  the  power  of  Congress  to  afford  him  protection  and  will  not 
create  conditions  that  will  cause  the  consumer  to  deceive  himself 
which  the  French-Capper  measure  will  do  if  enacted.  And  the 
Rogers-Lodge  bill  will  do  no  injustice  to  the  manufacturers  of 
good  virgin-wool  fabrics  by  officially  classing  them  with  inferior 
goods  made  of  virgin  wool,  as  would  the  French-Capper  bill.  Nor 
will  the  Rogers-Lodge  bill  increase  the  cost  of  goods  to  the  con- 
sumer as  will  the  French-Capper  bill. 

The  proponents  of  compulsory  branding  say  that  a  misbranding 
law,  like  the  Rogers-Lodge  bill,  would  be  ineffective  in  the  case  of 
goods  containing  shoddy  which  are  sold  as  "all  wool,"  because 
shoddy  is  all  wool.  That  objection  can  be  readily  removed  by  in- 
corporating in  the  bill  such  a  definition  of  all  wool  as  will  be  inclu- 
sive only  of  pure  new  wool  and  exclusive  of  any  shoddy,  reworked 
wool,  or  wool  substitutes.  Then  the  sale  or  offering  for  sale  as  "all 
wool"  of  any  article  which  in  truth  contained  reworked  material 
would  subject  the  offender  to  the  sufficient  penalties  of  the  act. 

Senator  Watson.   You  say  that  is  similar  to  the  English  law? 

Mr.  Wood.  Yes,  sir.  It  was  drafted  from  the  English  law,  but 
the  English  law  recites  a  good  deal  of  English  phraseology,  is  rather 
cumbersome,  and  the  language  of  this  bill  has  been  made  more  in 
consonance  with  American  practice.  That  bill,  I  think,  is  now 
before  your  committee. 

Rising  to  correct  false  impressions  created  against  the  Rogers- 
Lodge  bill  Mr.  Paul  T.  Cherington,  secretary  of  the  National  Asso- 
ciation of  Wool  Manufacturers,  said: 


\ 


JSm 


It  has  been  stated  from  time  to  time  that  that  bill  is  wholly  in- 
adequate for  the  protection  of  the  public  on  various  grounds,  no- 
tably that  it  covers  only  misbranding.  I  want  to  quote  one  or  two 
sections  from  the  bill  to  correct  that  impression.  In  section  2 
of  H.  R.  16  (the  Rogers  bill)  the  bill  provides: 

That  every  person  who,  in  any  Territory  of  the  United  States 
or  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  misbrands,  or  misrepresents,  or 
causes  to  be  misbranded  or  misrepresented  or  applies  or  causes  to 
be  applied  any  false  trade  description  to  any  goods,  wares,  mer- 
chandise, or  things, 

and  so  on. 

The  same  wording  approximately  is  used  in  section  3  to  cover 
the  selling  or  exposing  for  sale  in  the  Territories  of  the  United 
States  and  in  the  District  of  Columbia. 

Section  4  provides: 

That  the  introduction  into  any  State,  Territory,  or  the  District 
of  Columbia  from  any  other  State,  Territory,  or  the  District  of 
Columbia,  or  from  any  foreign  country,  or  shipment  to  any  foreign 
country,  of  any  article  of  commerce  or  trade  or  other  conmiodity 
which  bears  a  false  trade  description  or  which  is  misbranded  or  mis- 
represented within  the  meaning  of  this  act,  is  hereby  prohibited. 

One  other  point  that  I  want  to  bring  out  in  connection  with  this 
is  contained  in  sections  5  to  10  of  the  bill,  which  set  forth  the  defini- 
tions as  called  for  in  the  law.  Particularly  in  section  6  it  is  pro- 
vided: 

That  for  the  purposes  of  this  act  the  expression  "trade  descrip- 
tion" means  any  description,  statement  or  other  indication,  direct 
or  indirect — 

(a)  As  to  the  number,  quantity,  quality,  grade,  measure,  gauge,  or 
weight  of  any  goods. 

Then  there  are  provisions  as  to  the  place  or  country,  and  the 
mode  of  manufacturing,  and  (d)  is  as  follows: 

"As  to  the  material  of  which  any  goods  are  composed." 

And  there  are  other  provisions  of  a  kindred  character.  Those, 
however,  are  the  ones  that  I  want  to  call  particular  attention  to, 
because  it  seems  to  me  that  the  measure  as  thus  drawn  is  calculated 
to  protect  the  public's  interest  in  so  far  as  the  public's  interest  may 
be  jeopardized  by  any  unfair  trade  practices  coming  within  the 
scope  of  the  bill  under  consideration;  and  that  it  does  it  by 
an  accepted  principle  of  law  by  a  method  which  has  been  tested 
for  over  30  years,  and  which  has  the  advantage  of  being  entirely 


m 


23 


feasible  of  administration  without  causing  undue  burden  on  any 
producer  or  manufacturer  or  distributor  who  has  any  inclination  to 
be  honest,  without  putting  any  undue  burden  on  the  public,  and  at 
the   same  time  giving  the  public  an   adequate  safeguard   against 

any  possible  abuse. 

The  concluding  portions  of  the  measure  set  forth  a  definite  pro- 
gram and  method  of  administration,  which  also  is  based  on  existing 
laws  of  a  kindred  character,  and  as  nearly  as  can  be  judged,  taken  in 
connection  with  the  provisions  set  up  by  the  first  part  of  the  law, 
offer  a  thoroughly  feasible  and  practical  and  economical  method 
of  administration.    (Hearings,  p.  362.) 


V5k 


f 


25 


TEXT  OF  ROGERS-LODGE  BILL. 


H.  R.  16. 


67th  congress,  1st  Session. 


S.  1882. 


A    BILL 


To  protect  the  public  against  fraud  by  prohibiting  the  manu- 
facture, sale,  or  transportation  in  interstate  commerce  of 
misbranded,  misrepresented,  or  falsely  described  articles,  to 
regulate  the  traffic  therein,  and  for  other  purposes. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of 
the  United  States  of  America  in  Congress  assembled,  That  this  Act 
shall  be  known  and  designated  as  the  Honest  Merchandise  Act  of 

Sec.  2.  That  every  person  who,  in  any  Territory  of  the  United 
States  or  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  misbrands  or  misrepresents, 
or  causes  to  be  misbranded  or  misrepresented,  or  applies  or  causes 
to  be  applied  any  false  trade  description  to  any  goods,  wares,  mer- 
chandise, or  things  shall  be  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  and  for  the 
first  offense  shall,  upon  conviction  thereof,  be  fined  not  to  exceed 
$1,000,  or  shall  be  sentenced  to  imprisonment  for  a  term  not  to 
exceed  one  year,  or  both  so  fined  and  imprisoned,  in  the  discretion 
of  the  court;  and  for  each  subsequent  offense  shall,  upon  con- 
viction thereof,  be  fined  not  less  than  $2,500  or  be  sentenced  to 
imprisonment  for  not  exceeding  two  years,  or  both  so  fined  and 
imprisoned,  in  the  discretion  of  the  court. 

Sec.  3.  That  every  person  who,  in  any  Territory  of  the  United 
States  or  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  sells  or  exposes  for  or  has 
in  his  possession  for  sale  or  any  purpose  of  trade  or  manufacture 
any  goods  or  things  whatsoever  to  which  any  false  trade  description 
is  applied,  or  which  is  misbranded  or  misrepresented,  shall  be  guilty 
of  a  misdemeanor,  and  for  each  offense  shall,  upon  conviction 
thereof,  be  punished  as  provided  in  section  2  of  this  Act. 

Sec.  4.  That  the  introduction  into  any  State,  Territory,  or  the 
District  of  "Columbia  from  any  other  State,  Territory,  or  the  Dis- 
trict of  Columbia,  or  from  any  foreign  country,  or  shipment  to  any 
foreign  country,  of  any  article  of  commerce  or  trade  or  other  com- 
modity which  bears  a  false  trade  description  or  which  is  misbranded 
or  misrepresented  within  the  meaning  of  this  Act  is  hereby  pro- 
hibited; and  any  person  who  shall  ship  or  deliver  for  shipment  from 
any  State,  Territory,  or  the  District  of  Columbia  to  any  other  State, 
Territory,  or  the  District  of  Columbia,  or  to  any  foreign  country, 
or  who  shall  receive  in  any  State,  Territory,  or  the  District  of 
Columbia  from  any  other  State,  Territory,  or  the  District  of  Colum- 
bia, or  foreign  country,  and  having  so  received  shall  deliver,  for 
pay  or  otherwise,  or  offer  to  deliver  to  any  other  person,  any  such 


article  so  misbranded,  misrepresented,  or  falsely  described  within 
the  meaning  of  this  Act,  or  any  person  who  shall  sell  or  offer  for 
sale  in  the  District  of  Columbia  or  the  Territories  of  the  United 
States  any  such  misbranded,  misrepresented,  or  falsely  described 
article  or  commodity,  or  export  or  offer  to  export  the  same  to  any 
foreign  country,  shall  be  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  and  for  the 
first  offense  shall,  upon  conviction  thereof,  be  fined  not  exceeding 
$1,000  or  shall  be  sentenced  to  imprisonment  for  a  term  not  to 
exceed  one  year,  or  both  so  fined  and  imprisoned,  in  the  discretion 
of  the  court;  and  upon  conviction  for  each  subsequent  offense  be 
fined  not  less  than  $2,500  or  be  imprisoned  not  exceeding  two  years, 
or  both  so  fined  and  imprisoned,  in  the  discretion  of  the  court,  and 
in  the  discretion  of  the  court  each  and  every  instance  may  con- 
stitute a  separate  offense:  Provided,  however,  That  this  Act  shall 
apply  to  goods  or  articles  of  merchandise  intended  for  export  to 
any  foreign  country  only  in  the  event  that  a  false  mark,  trade-mark, 
label,  brand,  device,  or  representation  is  used  thereon  or  in  con- 
nection therewith;  but  if  said  goods  or  articles  shall  be  in  fact  sold 
or  offered  for  sale  for  domestic  use  or  consumption,  then  this 
proviso  shall  not  exempt  said  goods  or  articles  from  the  operation 
of  any  of  the  provisions  of  this  Act:  And  provided  further.  That 
seeds,  roots,  bulbs,  or  nursery  stock  unintentionally  misbranded 
because  of  indistinguishability  by  their  appearance  shall  not  be 
deemed  misbranded,  misrepresented,  or  falsely  described  within 
the  meaning  of  this  Act. 

Sec.  5.  That  for  the  purposes  of  this  Act  an  article  shall  be 
deemed  to  be  misbranded  or  misrepresented — 

First.  If  it  be  offered  for  sale  under  the  name  of  another 
article  or  with  a  name  or  brand  so  nearly  like  it  as  to  deceive  pur- 
chasers as  to  its  origin  or  character. 

Second.  If  the  contents  of  the  package,  as  originally  put  up, 
shall  have  been  removed,  in  whole  or  in  part,  and  other  contents 
shall  have  been  placed  therein  unless  a  conspicuous  notice  of  such 
change  of  contents  is  attached  to  such  package. 

Third.  If  in  package  form,  and  the  contents  are  stated  in  terms 
of  weight,  measure,  numerical  count,  or  quality,  they  are  not  plainly 
and  correctly  stated  on  the  outside  of  the  package,  or  are  stated 
in  such  manner  as  to  deceive  or  mislead  the  purchaser  or  be  designed 
or  calculated  so  to  deceive  or  mislead  such  purchaser. 

Fourth.  Or  if  there  is  published,  issued,  or  circulated  concern- 
ing, regarding,  or  in  any  manner  pertaining  to  said  article  in  any 
newspaper,  magazine,  book,  pamphlet,  circular,  or  other  publica- 
tion or  advertisement,  any  false,  fraudulent,  misleading,  or  decep- 
tive words,  statement,  representation,  symbol,  design,  device,  or 
trade  description  as  to  any  of  the  matters  or  things  stipulated  in 
the  foregoing  subsections  of  this  section:  Provided,  however,  That 
the  publisher  of  any  newspaper,  magazine,  book,  pamphlet,  cir- 
cular, or  other  publication  or  advertisement,  shall  not  be  subject 
to  the  provisions  of  this  paragraph  unless  he  has  knowledge  that 
the  words,  statement,  representation,  symbol,  design,  device,  or 
trade  description  appearing  therein  are  in  fact  false,  fraudulent, 
misleading,  or  deceptive. 


26 


Sec.  6.  That  for  the  purposes  of  this  Act  the  expression  "trade 
description^'  means  any  description,  statement,  or  other  indication, 
direct,  or  indirect — 

(a)  As  to  the  number,  quantity,  quality,  grade,  measure,  gauge, 
or  weight  of  any  goods;  or 

(b)  As  to  the  place  or  country  in  which  any  goods  were  made 
or  produced;  or 

(c)  As  to  the  mode  of  manufacturing  or  producing  any  goods; 
or 

(d)  As  to  the  material  of  which  any  goods  are  composed;  or 

(e)  As  to  any  goods  being  the  subject  of  an  existing  patent, 
privilege,  or  copyright;  or 

(f)  As  to  the  former  or  present  market  value  or  the  amount  of 
reduction  in  price: 

and  the  use  of  any  figure,  word,  or  mark  which,  according  to  the 
custom  of  the  trade,  is  commonly  taken  to  be  an  indication  of  any 
of  the^above  matters,  shall  be  deemed  to  be  a  trade  description 
within  the  meaning  of  this  Act. 

Sec.  7.  That  for  the  purposes  of  this  Act  a  person  shall  be 
deemed  to  apply  a  trade-mark  or  mark  or  trade  description  to 
goods  who — 

(a)  Applies  it  to  the  goods  themselves;  or 

(b)  Applies  it  to  any  covering,  label,  or  other  thing  in  or  with 
which  the  goods  are  sold  or  exposed  or  had  in  possession  for  any 
purpose  of  sale,  trade,  or  manufacture;  or 

(c)  Places,  incloses,  or  annexes  any  goods  which  are  sold  or 
exposed  or  had  in  possession  for  any  purpose  of  sale,  trade,  or 
manufacture,  in,  with,  or  to  any  covering,  label,  or  other  thing  to 
which  a  trade-mark  or  trade  description  has  been  applied;  or 

(d)  Uses  a  trade-mark  or  mark  or  trade  description  in  any 
manner  calculated  to  lead  to  the  belief  that  the  goods  in  connection 
with  which  it  is  used  are  designated  or  described  by  that  trade- 
mark or  mark  or  trade  description. 

Sec.  8.  That  for  the  purposes  of  this  Act  the  expression  "cov- 
ering^'  includes  any  stopper,  cask,  can,  carton,  bottle,  vessel,  box, 
cover,  capsule,  case,  frame,  or  wrapper,  or  other  cover  or  container 
customarily  sold  and  delivered  with  the  commodity  contained,  or  in 
which  such  commodity  is  designed  to  be  exhibited  or  offered  for 
sale,  and  the  expression  "label"  includes  any  band  or  ticket.  A 
trade-mark  or  mark  or  trade  description  shall  be  deemed  to  be 
applied  whether  it  is  woven,  impressed,  or  otherwise  worked  into, 
or  annexed,  or  affixed  to  the  goods,  or  to  any  covering,  label,  or 
other  thing. 

Sec.  9.  That  for  the  purposes  of  this  Act  a  person  shall  be 
deemed  falsely  to  apply  to  goods  a  trade-mark  or  mark  who  applies 
a  mark  so  nearly  resembling  a  trade-mark  as  to  be  calculated  to 
deceive  or  mislead  or  who  applies  a  trade-mark  without  the  assent 
of  the  proprietor  of  such  trade-mark,  but  in  any  prosecution  for 
falsely  applying  a  J;rade-mark  to  the  goods  the  burden  of  proving 
the  assent  of  the  proprietor  shall  lie  on  the  defendant. 

Sec.  10.  That  the  Secretary  of  Commerce,  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury,  and  the  Secretary  of  Agriculture  shall  make  uniform 


j%      3^ 


27 


rules  and  regulations  for  carrying  out  the  provisions  of  this  Act, 
including  the  collection  and  examination  of  specimens  of  articles 
of  merchandise  or  trade,  or  other  commodities  manufactured,  sold, 
or  otherwise  disposed  of  or  offered  for  sale  or  other  disposition  in 
the  District  of  Columbia  or  any  Territory  of  the  United  States,  or 
which  are  being  transported  from  one  State,  Territory,  or  District, 
or  possession  of  the  United  States  to  another  for  sale,  exchange,  or 
other  disposition,  or  which  shall  be  offered  for  sale,  exchange,  or 
other  disposition  in  any  State,  Territory,  or  District  other  than 
that  in  which  they  shall  have  been  respectively  manufactured  or 
produced,  or  which  shall  be  received  from  any  foreign  country,  or 
which  are  intended  for  shipment  to  any  foreign  country,  or  which 
may  be  submitted  for  examination  by  the  appropriate  officer  of  any 
State,  Territory,  or  the  District  of  Columbia,  or  at  any  domestic 
or  foreign  port  through  which  such  articles  are  offered  for  inter- 
state commerce,  or  for  export  or  import  between  the  United  States 
and  any  foreign  port  or  country. 

Sec.  11.  That  if  any  United  States  district  attorney  or  other 
competent  authority  so  requests,  an  examination  of  such  specimens 
shall  be  made  in  the  Bureau  of  Standards  of  the  Department  of 
Commerce,  or  under  the  direction  and  supervision  of  such  bureau, 
for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  from  such  examination  whether  such 
articles  or  commodities  are  misbranded,  misrepresented,  or  falsely 
described  within  the  meaning  of  this  Act;  and  if  it  shall  appear 
from  any  such  examination  or  otherwise  that  any  of  such  specimens 
are  misbranded,  misrepresented,  or  falsely  described  within  the 
meaning  of  this  Act  the  Secretary  of  Commerce  shall  cause  notice 
thereof  to  be  given  to  the  person  from  whom  such  samples  or  speci- 
mens were  obtained  and  to  the  person,  if  any,  whose  brand  appears 
thereon.  Any  person  so  notified  shall  be  given  an  opportunity  to 
be  heard  under  such  rules  and  regulations  as  may  be  prescribed  as 
aforesaid,  and  if  it  appears  that  any  of  the  provisions  of  this  Act 
have  been  violated  by  such  person,  then  the  Secretary  of  Commerce 
shall  at  once  certify  such  fact  to  the  proper  United  States  district 
attorney,  with  a  copy  of  the  results  of  the  examination  of  such 
article,  duly  authenticated  under  oath  by  the  officer  making  the 
examination,  and  a  copy  thereof  shall  also  be  furnished  to  the 
person  against  whom  complaint  is  made:  Provided,  however,  That 
the  Secretary  of  Commerce  may,  in  his  discretion,  refrain  from 
certifying  to  a  United  States  district  attorney  the  fact  of  violation 
in  the  case  of  a  first  offense  and  in  case  the  offender  shall  enter 
into  and  faithfully  observe  a  stipulation  forever  to  cease  and 
desist  from  further  violation  of  this  Act. 

Sec.  12.  That  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  each  district  attorney  to 
whom  the  Secretary  of  Commerce  shall  report  any  violation  of  this 
Act,  or  to  whom  any  appropriate  officer  or  agent  of  any  munici- 
pality, county.  State,  Territory,  or  the  District  of  Columbia  shall 
present  satisfactory  evidence  of  such  violation,  to  cause  appropriate 
proceedings  to  be  commenced  and  prosecuted  in  the  proper  courts  of 
the  United  States,  without  delay,  for  the  enforcement  of  the  penal- 
ties as  in  such  case  herein  provided. 

Sec.  13.     That  no  dealer  or  other  person  shall  be  prosecuted 


28 


under  the  provisions  of  this  Act  when  he  can  establish  a  guaranty 
signed  by  the  manufacturer,  wholesaler,  or  other  person  residing 
m  the  United  States  from  whom  he  purchased  such  goods  or  articles 
to  the  effect  that  the  same  are  not  misbranded,  misrepresented,  or 
falsely  described  within  the  meaning  of  this  Act,  designating  it 
Such  guaranty  may  be  general,  covering  all  sales  by  the  guarantor 
to  such  dealer  or  other  person,  or  special,  covering  a  particular 
sale,  and  in  such  case  may  be  embodied  in  the  contract  or  invoice  of 
sale  or  m  a  separate  instrument.  Such  guaranty,  to  afford  pro- 
tection, shall  be  relied  upon  in  good  faith  by  the  dealer  or  other 
person  and  shall  contain  the  name  and  address  of  the  person  making 
the  sale  of  such  article  to  such  dealer  or  other  person,  and  in  such 
eases  such  guarantor  making  the  sale  shall  be  amenable  to  the  prose- 
cution, fines,  and  other  penalties  which  would  attach  in  due  course 
to  the  said  dealer  or  other  person  under  the  provisions  of  this 
Act:  Provided,  however,  That  where  such  goods  or  articles  of  mer- 
chandise when  so  purchased  by  the  dealer  or  other  person  are  so 
branded  or  labeled  as  to  indicate  or  purport  that  they  are  not 
misbranded,  misrepresented,  or  falsely  described  within  the  meaning 
of  this  Act,  designating  it,  and  the  dealer  or  other  person  in  good 
faith  relies  upon  such  branding  or  labeling,  the  same  shall  be  con- 
strued in  law  as  a  guaranty  to  such  dealer  or  other  person  within 
the  meaning  of  this  section. 

Sec.  14.     That  any  article  which  is  misbranded,  misrepresented, 
or  falsely  described  within  the  meaning  of  this  Act,  and  is  being 
transported  for  sale  from  one  State  or  Territory  or  the  District  of 
Columbia  to  any  other  State,  Territory,  or  the  District  of  Columbia, 
or,  having  been  transported,  remains  unloaded,  unsold,  or  in  the 
original  unbroken  packages,  or  if  it  be  sold  or  offered  for  sale  in 
any  Territory  or  the  District  of  Columbia,  or  if  it  be  imported  for 
sale  from  a  foreign  country,  or  if  it  be  intended  for  export  to  a 
foreign  country,  shall  be  liable  to  be  proceeded  against  in  any  dis- 
trict court  of  the  United  States  within  the  district  where  the  same 
is  found  and  seized  for  confiscation  by  a  process  of  libel  for  con- 
demnation.    And  if  such  article  is  condemned  as  being  misbranded, 
misrepresented,  or  falsely  described   within  the   meaning  of  this 
Act,  the  same  shall  be  disposed  of  by  destruction  or  sale,  as  the 
court  may  direct,  and  the  proceeds  thereof,  if  sold,  less  the  legal 
cost  and  charges,  shall  be  paid  into  the  Treasury,  of  the  United 
States;  but  such  goods  shall  not  be  sold  in  any  jurisdiction  con- 
trary to  the  provisions  of  this  Act  or  the  laws  of  that  jurisdiction : 
Provided,  however,  That  upon  the  payment  of  the  cost  of  such  libel 
proceedings  and  the  execution  and  delivery  of  a  good  and  sufficient 
bond  to  the  effect  that  such  articles  shall  not  be  sold  or  otherwise 
disposed  of  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  this  Act  or  the  laws  of 
any  State,   Territory,  or  District,  the  court  may  by  order  direct 
that  such  articles  be  delivered  to  the  owner  thereof.     The  proceed- 
ings of  such  libel  cases  shall  conform,  as  nearly  as  may  be,  to  the 
proceedings  in   admiralty,  except  that  either  party  may  demand 
trial  by  jury  of  any  issue  of  fact  joined  in  any  such  case,  and  all 
such  proceedings  shall  be  at  the  suit  of  and  in  the  name  of  the 
United  States. 


.11 


j^'^     ik 


29 


Sec.  15.  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  shall  deliver  to  the 
Secretary  of  Commerce,  upon  his  request  from  time  to  time,  samples 
of  articles  which  are  being  imported  into  the  United  States  or 
offered  for  import,  giving  notice  thereof  to  the  owner  or  consignee 
who  may  appear  before  the  Secretary  of  Commerce  and  have  the 
right  to  introduce  testimony.  If  it  appears  from  the  examination 
of  such  samples  that  any  article  which  is  being  imported  into  the 
United  States  or  offered  for  import  is  misbranded,  misrepresented, 
or  falsely  described  within  the  meaning  of  this  Act,  the  said  article 
shall  be  refused  admission,  and  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  shall 
refuse  delivery  to  the  consignee  and  shall  cause  the  destruction  of 
any  goods  so  refused  delivery  which  shall  not  be  exported  by  the 
consignee  within  three  months  from  the  date  of  notice  of  such 
refusal  under  such  regulations  as  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  may 
prescribe:  Provided,  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  may 
deliver  to  the  consignee  such  goods  pending  examination  and  decision 
upon  the  execution  of  a  penal  bond  for  the  amount  of  the  full 
invoice  value  of  such  goods,  together  with  duty  thereon.  On  refusal 
to  return  such  goods  for  any  cause  to  the  custody  of  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury  when  demanded  for  the  purpose  of  excluding  them 
from  the  country,  or  for  any  other  purpose,  said  consignee  shall 
forfeit  the  full  amount  of  the  bond:  Provided,  further,  That  all 
charges  for  storage,  cartage,  and  labor  on  goods  which  are  refused 
admission  or  delivery  shall  be  paid  by  the  owner  or  consignee  and, 
in  default  of  such  payment,  shall  constitute  a  lien  against  any 
future  importation  made  by  such  owner  or  consignee. 

Sec.  16.  That  the  term  ^Territory"  as  used  in  this  Act  shall 
include  the  insular  possessions  of  the  United  States.  The  word 
"person'^  as  used  in  this  Act  shall  be  construed  to  import  both 
plural  and  the  singular,  as  the  case  demands,  and  shall  include  cor- 
porations, companies,  societies,  and  associations.  The  expressions 
'^falsely  described,"  "false  trade  description,"  and  "falsely  apply- 
ing," as  used  in  this  Act  shall  include  misleading  descriptions  or 
applications.  When  construing  and  enforcing  the  provisions  of 
this  Act  the  act,  omission,  or  failure  of  any  officer,  agent,  or  other 
person  acting  for  or  employed  by  any  corporation,  company,  society, 
or  association  within  the  scope  of  his  employment  or  office  shall 
in  every  case  be  also  deemed  to  be  the  act,  omission,  or  failure  of 
such  corporation,  company,  society,  or  association  as  well  as  that 
of  the  person. 

Sec.  17.  That  nothing  in  this  Act  shall  be  construed  to  repeal, 
amend,  or  affect  the  provisions  of  the  Act  known  as  the  Food  and 
Drug  Act  of  June  30,  1906,  or  the  Act  known  as  the  Insecticide 
Act  of  1910. 

Sec.  18.  That  the  unconstitutionality  of  any  part  of  this  Act 
shall  not  affect  the  constitutionality  of  the  remainder  of  the  Act. 

Sec.  19.  That  this  Act  shall  be  in  force  from  and  after  six 
months  from  the  date  of  its  passage. 


I 


CARDINAL  OBJECTIONS   TO   COMPULSORY 
BRANDING    OF   WOOL   TEXTILES. 


1.  Branding  of  wool  fabrics  to  show  only  their  fiber  content 
cannot  have  any  relation  to  the  durability,  warmth,  or  other  desir- 
able properties  of  the  fabric  ::nd  hence  at  best  is  useless,  and  at 
worst  is  misleading. 

2.  The  distinction  between  wool  fibers  "previously  spun  or 
woven"  and  those  spun  or  woven  the  first  time  cannot  be  established 
by  physical  or  chemical  test.  It  can  only  be  made  certain  by  knowl- 
edge of  the  fibers'  actual  history — a  difficult  matter  to  make  sure  of 
without  costly  systems  of  oaths,  inspections,  and  bondings. 

3.  The  knowledge  of  fiber  content  provided  for  by  the  pro- 
posed law  would  not  only  be  useless  or  misleading  to  the  consumer, 
if  accurately  transmitted  to  him,  but  the  process  of  making  sure 
that  it  was  accurately  transmitted  to  the  consumer  opens  up  chances 
for  fraud  not  offered  by  the  normal  channels  of  commerce.  Claims 
of  merit  implied  in  false  declarations  imder  the  law  would  be  ex- 
tremely difficult  to  refute. 

4.  Branding  to  show  only  fiber  content  would  be  bad  enough 
if  it  were  merely  made  optional  under  a  Federal  registration  and 
branding  system.  To  make  it  compulsory  puts  a  needless  and 
costly  handicap  on  all  honestly  conducted  wool  fabric  business,  and 
in  addition  to  offering  no  hindrance  to  dishonest  persons,  opens  up 
to  them  new  chances  for  deception.  It  is  not  unlike  a  Federal 
statute  requiring  all  men  to  wear  a  button  telling  how  many  times 
they  have  been  to  Boston.  If  honestly  lived  up  to,  it  is  meaningless, 
and  whatever  advantages  may  be  gained  from  compliance  are  open 
to4he  just  and  the  unjust  alike,  regardless  of  the  facts. 

5.  Compulsory  branding  of  the  sort  contemplated,  if  honestly 
and  effectively  done,  would  cost  something.  That  cost  would  be 
justified  only  if  the  return  to  the  public  were  valuable  and  certain. 
It  could  be  neither  of  these. 

6.  The  wool  growers  who  expect  that  this  project  will  raise  wool 
prices  are  deceived,  first,  as  to  the  amount  of  reworked  stock  used, 
second,  as  to  its  use  as  a  substitute  for  wool  instead  of  as  a  supple- 
ment to  the  wool  supply  as  is  actually  the  case,  and  third,  as  to  the 
facts  concerning  the  relative  prices  of  new  and  reworked  stock 
and  the  fabrics  made  from  them.  These  facts  have  been  brought 
out  repeatedly. 

7.  The  project  does  not  provide  for  "Truth  in  Fabrics"  but  for 
the  compulsory  branding  of  incomplete  assertions,  the  accuracy  of 
which  is  incapable  of  proof  or  refutation  and  the  implications  of 
which  are  deceptive. 


f 


f^, 


•  $ 


LIBRARY 


- "% 


SCHOOL  OF  BUSINE^^/      ^ 

THE    COST    AND    INEFFECTIVENESS    OF 
COMPULSORY    BRANDING. 


HOW   THE    PROCESS    OF    DISTRIBUTING    WOOL    FABRICS 

WOULD  BE  HINDERED  AND  ITS  COST  INCREASED 

BY  OBLIGING  WOOL  FABRIC  MANUFAC 

TURERS  TO  BRAND  EVERY  YARD. 


{Excerpts  from  testimony  cow-erniug  the  French- Capper  compulsory  hramVtruf 
hill  before  a  committee  of  the  United  Slates  Sermte,  June  1-S,  July  7  and 
8,  19^1^ 

In  order  to  show  clearly  how  useless,  cumbersome,  and  costly  the 
process  of  compulsory  branding  of  wool  fabrics  would  be  under  the 
proposed  French-Capper  bill  we  have  arranged  here  in  order  from 
the  clothing  retailer  back  to  the  wool  merchant  statements  showing 
how  the  various  steps  in  distribution  would  be  affected. 

These  are  all  taken  from  the  recent  hearings  before  the  sub- 
committee of  the  Senate  Committee  on  Interstate  Commerce. 

The  first  is  a  resolution  passed  by  the  Board  of  Directors  of  the 
National  Association  of  Retail  Clothiers  and  is  as  follows: 

The  board  of  directors  of  the  National  Association  of  Retail 
Clothiers  in  session  at  Chicago,  on  June  2,  after  careful  considera- 
tion of  the  regulations  asked  for  under  the  bills  known  as  the 
French  and  Capper  bills  for  the  labeling  of  merchandise  to  show 
its  constituent  parts,  are  unanimously  and  firmly  of  the  belief  that 
such  legislation  does  not  afford  to  the  consumer  the  protection  that 
is  claimed  for  it  by  its  supporters.  To  the  contrary,  it  is  the 
belief  of  the  board  that  if  enacted  into  law  it  would  legitimatize 
certain  misleading  if  not  fraudulent  misrepresentations  regarding 
merchandise.  It  is  the  firm  belief  of  the  board  that  the  law  if  en- 
acted would  prove  not  only  impractical,  but  impossible  of  enforce- 
ment. 

The  board  of  directors  is  not  adverse  to  legislation  that  will  pro- 
tect the  interests  of  the  consumer  and  would  gladly  lend  its  support 
to  any  practical  measure  that  would  protect  the  interests  of  the 
consumers  in  the  merchandise  they  buy,  and  they  suggest  some  act 
along  the  lines  of  the  British  Merchandise  Marks  Act  adapted  to  the 
needs  of  this  country,  which  would  make  it  a  penalty  to  misbrand 
merchandise,  as  being  practical  and  effective. 

The  board  by  this  resolution  strongly  protests  against  the  enact- 
ment of  the  French  and  Capper  labeling  acts  for  the  above  reasons. 

Mr.  John  W.  Hahn,  Executive  Secretary  of  the  National  Gar- 
ment Retailers*  Association,  New  York  City.  The  National  Garment 
Retailers'  Association,  composed  of  1200  retailers  of  women  s, 
misses*,  and  children's  wearing  apparel  throughout  the  country,  Jo 


hereby  emphatically  register  their  protest  against  the  passage  of 
bill  S.  799,  introduced  in  the  United  States  Senate  by  Senator  Cap- 
per, and  submitted  to  your  conunittee  for  consideration. 

If  there  were  no  other  reason  for  our  opposing  this  measure,  we 
would  do  so  solely  on  the  broad  ground  that  it  is  class  legislation  and 
is  ui^ed  only  in  the  interest  of  the  wool  growers.  We  believe  that 
it  has  never  been  the  intention  of  Congress,  and  it  is  not  now,  to 
pass  any  legislation  which  would  promote  the  interests  of  a  few  in 
one  section  to  the  disadvantage  of  others  in  other  sections  of  the 
country. 

The  bill  itself,  we  believe,  is  misbranded;  it  would  not  "'prevent 
deceit  and  unfair  prices  that  result  from  the  unrevealed  presence 
of  substitutes  for  virgin  wool  in  woven  fabrics,"  etc.,  as  claimed 
for  it.  On  the  contrary  we  believe  the  passage  of  this  bill  would  en- 
courage malpractice  and  dishonest  dealing. 

Your  committee  will  see  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  bill  which 
would  in  any  way  compel  those  trade  factors  handling  woolen  fabrics 
to  specify  on  the  labels  or  brands  the  quality  of  the  wool  going 
into  the  fabric.  There  are  many  qualities  and  standards  of  wool, 
and  simply  to  say  that  a  fabric  is  100  per  cent  virgin  wool,  is  in 
itself  no  recommendation  or  standard,  and  would  mean  nothing  in 
the  way  of  protection  to  the  public.  On  the  other  hand,  such  a 
law  would  mislead  the  public  to  believe  that  all  fabrics  or  garment? 
branded  100  per  cent  virgin  wool  are  of  the  best  quality  and  superior 
to  wool  mixtures,  though  the  intrinsic  value  of  the  mixtures  may 
be  greater  than  that  of  some  virgin-wool  fabrics. 

So  the  passage  of  this  measure,  in  our  opinion,  would  place  all 
virgin-wool  fabrics  on  the  same  level,  and  dishonest  traders  so 
desiring  could  easily  take  advantage  of  the  law  to  enrich  themselves 
at  the  expense  of  the  consuming  public. 

HOW    THE    PUBLIC    WOULD    BE    DECEIVED. 

To  illustrate  how  the  public  might  be  deceived  under  such  a  law: 
Two  garments  of  the  same  style  and  character,  one  of  excellent  vir- 
gin-wool and  the  other  of  inferior  virgin-wool  fabric,  would  be 
branded  identically  the  same.  Naturally  the  public  would  consider 
them  of  equal  value,  and  traders  so  desiring  might  easily  increase 
the  price  level  of  the  inferior  virgin-wool  garment  to  that  of  the 
better  virgin-wool  garment  and  extort  an  unfair  profit.  The  public, 
of  course,  would  take  it  for  granted  that  they  are  fully  protected 
under  this  legislation. 

Then,  again,  if  the  garment  of  the  inferior  virgin-wool  fabric 
was  not  advanced  in  price,  would  not  this  bill  put  the  honest  traders 
to  a  great  disadvantage?  We  believe  it  would,  as  the  honest  trader 
would  have  great  difficulty  in  convincing  the  public  that  the  fabrics 
of  his  garment  are  of  a  better  quality  virgin  wool  than  the  fabrics 
of  the  dishonest  trader,  and  the  public  would  simply  accept  his  state- 
ments that  they  are  better  as  attempts  on  the  part  of  the  honest 
trader  to  excuse  high  prices. 

Every  factor  in  trade  to-day  is  striving  to  bring  down  prices 
so  that  there  will  be  a  general  resumption  of  trade  and  a  return 
to  normal  conditions.  Pass  this  legislation  and,  in  our  opinion, 
instead  of  declining  prices,  the  public  will  witness  increased  prices 
on  all  virgin-wool  fabrics. 


.*  "  ■:  ■^- 


'    f-> 


This  bill  intends  to  brand  or  label  fabrics  or  garments  as  to  the 
percentage  of  virgin  wool.  To  say  that  a  cloth  is  a  virgin-wool  fab- 
ric is  no  particular  recommendation  for  it  as  against  the  fabric  made 
partly  of  shoddy  and  virgin  wool.  To  the  trade  shoddy  means  re- 
worked wool;  to  the  consumer  it  means  an  inferior  substitute,  and 
this  misconception  would  only  be  confirmed  in  the  opinion  of  the 
public  by  the  passage  of  this  law.  Naturally  the  public  would  as- 
sume that  their  conclusion  that  shoddy  is  inferior  was  justified,  for 
otherwise,  they  would  reason,  the  United  States  Congress  would 
not  find  it  necessary  to  pass  legislation  compelling  the  labeling  of 
fabrics  containing  shoddy.  So  you  would  find  the  public  more  and 
more  turning  from  those  fabrics  composed  partly  of  shoddy  and  ac- 
cepting only  virgin-wool  fabrics,  regardless  of  the  merit  of  the 
wool-mixture  fabric  and  the  quality  of  the  virgin  wool. 

Shoddy  does  not  mean  inferiority.  We,  ourselves,  find  it  al- 
most impossible  to  determine,  even  by  careful  analysis,  whether  cer- 
tain fabrics  are  made  partly  of  shoddy  and  partly  of  virgin  wool 
or  entirely  of  virgin  wool. 

Much  has  been  said,  Mr.  Chairman,  at  this  hearing  regarding 
shoddy.  Nothing  has  been  said  regarding  goats;  if  this  bill  were 
passed  into  law  the  retailers  would  be  the  goats,  and  that  is  why  we 
are  here  protesting,  because  we  do  not  want  to  be  the  goat. 

PASSAGE  OF  BILL  WOULD  ADD  TO  GARMENT  RETAILER'S   OVERHEAD. 

In  our  opinion,  the  passage  of  this  bill  would  add  to  the  garment 
retailer's  overhead  by  necessitating  the  maintenance  of  a  vigilance 
force  within  the  store  to  make  certain  that  the  provisions  of  the  law 
are  being  properly  carried  out.  A  bureau  of  scientific  research 
might  have  to  be*  established  to  test  the  fabric  of  each  garment, 
especially  to  ascertain  the  amount  of  cotton,  if  any,  contained  in 
the  fabric  before  offering  it  for  sale,  to  be  assured  that  the  labels 
attached  by  the  manufacturer  are  correct  and  truthful,  for  the  bur- 
den of  proof  under  the  bill  rests  upon  the  retailer.  In  case  of  error 
it  is  obligatory  upon  the  retailer  to  prove  that  the  label  attached  to 
the  garment  going  out  of  the  store  was  the  label  passed  along  to 
the  store  bv  the  manufacturer.  ,    n     • 

The  committee  will  realize  that  the  retailer  might  be  wholly  in- 
nocent of  the  offense,  yet  it  would,  in  some  cases  at  least,  be  difficult 
for  the  retailer  to  prove  his  innocence.  The  committee  will  also  ap- 
preciate that  retailers  during  the  course  of  the  year  have  returned 
to  them  hundreds  of  garments  purchased  by  the  public  which  m 
many  cases  have  been  worn.  If  the  label  were  detached,  as  it  prob- 
ably would  be  by  the  consumer,  what  guaranty  would  the  store  have 
that  the  label  and  garment  returned  were  associated  when  they  left 
the  store?  Some  garments  would  likely  come  back  without  labels; 
many  garments,  especially  those  returned  for  no  other  reason  than 
that^they  do  not  please  the  customer,  are  sold  over  again.  How  could 
the  store  protect  itself  on  these  garments  if  the  labels  had  been 

removed? 

T.nhor  lea'lers  with  bolshevik  tendencies  migrht  well  use  the  passapre 
of  this  law  for  the  purpose  of  stirring  up  greater  unrest,  emphasiz- 
ing class  distinction,  and  pointing  out  the  advantages  the  nch 
have  over  the  poor,  even  in  the  buying  of  clothing.  They  might  at- 
tempt to  convince  the  poor  that  only  the  wealthy  could  buy  garments 


t  * 


•  <• 


of  virgin  wool  while  the  poor  must  buy  cheaper  grades,  where  cotton 
and  shoddy  are  used  as  a  mixture  with  virgin  wool. 

If  such  protection  were  needed — and  we  declare  it  is  not — there 
are  sufficient  State  laws  to  give  the  public  adequate  protection  along 
this  line  without  Federal  legislation.  We  believe  that  the  intention 
and  desire  of  the  stores  to  deal  honestly  is  a  greater  safeguard  to 
the  public  than  all  the  laws  of  this  kind  that  Congress  could  enact. 
Stores  that  are  dishonest  can  not  continue  long  in  business. 

But  we  respectfully  call  to  the  attention  of  the  committee  that 
36  States  in  the  Union  now  have  advertising  laws  sufficiently  em- 
bracing to  protect  the  public  against  false  and  misleading  state- 
ments, not  only  when  used  in  the  sale  of  woolen  fabrics  and  gar- 
ments of  woolen  fabrics,  but  all  kinds  of  wares  and  merchandise. 

If  it  is  the  intention  of  the  supporters  of  this  bill  to  sincerely 
protect  the  public,  all  that  is  needed  upon  their  part  is  to  check 
up  the  offenders  and  prosecute  them  under  the  law  in  these  36 
States  and  to  urge  the  adoption  of  similar  laws  in  the  remainder. 
For  the  information  of  the  committee  we  are  submitting  the  complete 
text  of  the  honest-advertising  law,  known  as  the  Printers'  Ink  model 
statute,  which,  we  believe,  takes  care  of  the  condition  which  the. sup- 
porters of  this  bill  claim  exists. 

Mr.  Paul  Prager,  Manufacturer  of  women's  clothing,  New  York 
City.  I  propose  to  confine  myself  exclusively  to  the  impractica- 
bility and  workability  of  the  bill.  We  are  not  so  much  concerned 
in  the  truth  in  fabric  bill  as  proposed  as  the  truth  in  legislation. 
Enactment  of  this  bill,  in  our  opinion,  would  only  add  greater  cost 
to  the  consumer,  and  we  are  interested  in  the  question  as  to  who 
is  to  pay  the  bill.  We  sympathize  with  the  sheep  industry,  and  any 
bill  that  would  give  their  industry  relief  would  be  welcomed  by 
us,  provided  it  did  not,  by  the  workings  of  the  bill,  tax  an  excessive 
levy  on  the  many  to  support  the  few. 

The  proponents  of  the  bill  take  the  wool  from  the  sheep's  back 
and  by  some  magic  process  transport  it  immediately  to  the  con- 
sumer of  ready-made  garments.  They  tell  you,  as  has  been  testi- 
fied here,  that  all  that  they  require  to  make  the  sheep  industry  a 
profitable  industry  is  a  26-cent  advance  on  the  present  price  of 
wool,  and  that  this  advance,  based  on  an  average  of  4V2  pounds 
required  to  make  a  garment,  would  only  add  $1  to  the  cost  of  the 
garment — ^that  is,  to  the  consumer — without  taking  into  considera- 
tion the  many  ramifications  that  this  wool  must  pass  through  before 
reaching  the  consumer. 

Taking  their  own  figure  of  $1  added  cost  per  garment,  the  wool 
buyer,  before  passing  it  on  to  the  woolen  manufacturer,  would  have 
to  add  his  percpntasre  of  overhead  cost  phis  the  profit  of  the  woolen 
manufacturer ;  it  becomes  one  of  the  factors  in  determining  the  cost 
of  his  material,  to  which  he  adds  his  percentage  of  overhead  and 
profit  and  passes  it  on  to  us.  We  have  to  calculate  our  garments 
based  on  this  cost  and  add  on  our  percentage  of  overhead  and  pro- 
fit and  pass  it  on  to  the  retnilor.  The  rotniVr  mn«t  add  his  per- 
centage of  overhead  and  profit  and  he  must  collect  this  amount  from 
the  consumer,  who  in  the  final  analysis  pays  the  bill.  And,  mark 
you,  this  is  only  based  on  the  assumption  that  wool  will  advance 
only  20  cents  a  pound. 

If  this  bill  is  enacted  and  the  fondest  hopes  of  the  wool  growers 


i 


1 


t  * 


are  realized,  and  the  demand  becomes  greater  than  the  supply  and 
keeps  on  increasing,  and  the  price  of  wool  has  advanced  beyond  20 
cents  a  pound  and  keeps  on  climbing,  I  will  leave  it  to  the  judgment 
of  the  committee  as  to  what  will  be  the  size  of  the  bill  that  the  con- 
sumer will  have  to  pay. 

It  would  be  exceedingly  difficult  for  a  spurious  fabric  to  get 
into  our  industry.  If  there  is  one  thing  that  our  industry  does 
do  and  does  well  it  is  to  give  to  the  public  the  best  wearing  and 
most  stylish  material  that  it  is  possible  to  give  for  the  priced  gar- 
ment it  is  able  to  purchase.  Before  placing  an  order  for  any 
quantity  of  material,  we  require  a  sample  piece  to  be  delivered  and 
we  put  it  to  every  test  that  is  necessary  to  determine  its  durability 
for  the  purpose  and  for  the  priced  garment  in  which  we  intend  to 
use  it. 

Having  passed  the  inspection  of  our  examiners,  it  is  sent  to  the 
sponger  again  to  be  examined  for  possible  imperfections  in  weav- 
ing, in  shading,  and  for  tenderness.  If  the  sample  piece  meets  all 
these  requirements,  an  order  is  placed  and  every  piece  of  goods  that 
is  delivered  against  this  order  is  subject  to  the  same  tests,  and  every 
piece  not  coming  up  to  the  requirements  of  the  sample  or  found  im- 
perfect is  rejected  by  our  examiner  and  sponger,  and  returned  to 
the  mill  from  which  it  is  purchased.  ^ 

INNUENDO  THAT  ADULTERATED   CLOTHING   IS   FORCED   UPON   CONSUMER 

RESENTED. 

We  resent  the  slur  cast  upon  our  industry  by  direct  testimony  and 
by  innuendo  that  adulterated  clothing  is  forced  by  us  upon  the  con- 
sumer; that  we  take  their  good  money  and  give  them  counterfeits 
in  exchange. 

I  have  no  knowledge  of  the  sheep  industry,  the  shoddy  industry, 
the  spinner,  the  weaver,  or  how  our  goods  are  manufactured  greater 
than  is  possessed  by  the  average  intelligent  citizen,  nor  am  I  going 
to  wander  into  pastures  I  know  not  of,  but  from  the  time  the  fin- 
ished cloth  is  delivered  into  my  hands  until  it  reaches  the  consumer 
as  a  finished  garment  I  do  know  as  a  result  of  my  33  years'  expe- 
rience in  the  garment-manufacturing  industry. 

I  have  been  brought  up  in  it  from  a  boy,  and  have  been  through  all 
the  different  sales  houses. 

The  national  demand  for  revision  of  prices  downward  has  com- 
pelled us  to  exercise  the  most  rigid  economy  and  to  scrutinize  pro- 
duction costs  and  to  apply  the  pruning  where  possible  without  im- 
pairing efficiency.  Our  great  need  to  lessen  prices  is  production; 
we  cannot  reduce  wages  in  the  same  ratio  that  other  commodities 
are  being  reduced,  but  we  are  asking  that  there  be  more  production 
for  the  same  rate  of  wage,  and  right  now  we  are  devoting  all  of 
our  energy  for  this  purpose,  and  if  this  bill  is  enacted  into  law,  it 
will,  as  I  will  later  point  out,  slow  up  production  to  such  an  extent 
as  to  exceed  the  prices  that  had  to  be  asked  for  manufactured  gar- 
ments during  the  war  period. 

As  regards  the  stamp  that  would  be  required  under  this  bill,  we 
would  have  to  demand  of  the  mills  that  it  be  placed  on  the  selvage. 
We  cannot  use  materials  with  the  stamp  in  the  back. 

As  stated  before,  our  garments  are  made  for  us  by  sub-manu- 
facturers and  contractors,  and  there  are  employed  for  the  making 


•  « 


6 


of  ladies'  coats,  suits,  and  skirts  approximately  50,000  workers, 
divided  up  into  about  2200  shops.  These  workers  are  all  foreigners, 
the  great  majority  coming  from  Russia,  and  a  great  number  do  not 
even  speak  our  language  and  have  to  be  dealt  with  through  persons 
able  to  speak  their  and  our  language.  , 

They  are  very  clannish,  congregate  in  one  locality,  bring  their 
foreign  and  religious  customs  with  them,  read  only  papers  printed 
in  their  own  language,  observe  all  the  holidays  that  their  religion 
calls  for,  and  these  are  many,  and  come  mostly  in  the  heart  of  our 
season.  If  you  should  perchance  be  in  their  locality  any  morning 
that  they  go  to  work  and  ride  in  the  same  public  conveyance  that 
they  do,  you  would  not  see  a  single  English  paper  read  or  hear 
the  English  language  spoken,  and  it  is  to  these  people  in  our  indus- 
try that  must  be  intrusted  the  duty  of  complying  with  this  law, 
when  it  would  tax  the  intelligenoe  of  the  average  intellectual  per- 
son to  interpret  its  condition. 

The  wages  generally  amount  to  about— it  averages  from  an  oper- 
ator at  about  $60  a  week  down  to  as  low  as  $30. 

I  profess  for  myself  but  an  ordinary  degree  of  intelligence.  I 
have  been  in  this  garment  industry  since  a  boy  of  18  years  of  age, 
and  have  not  had  the  opportunity  that  others  have  had  to  acquire 
that  knowledge  that  everyone  desires,  and  I  want  to  say  right  here 
that  I  am  hazy  on  a  great  many  points  in  this  bill  regarding  the 
manner  in  which  it  is  to  be  enforced. 

IF  DESIRED  LAW  SLOWED  UP  PRODUCTION  ONE  GARMENT  PER  MACHINE 
IN  TWO  DAYS  COST  WOULD  BE  INCREASED  TWENTY-FIVE  PER  CENT. 

The  workers  in  our  industry  work  44  hours  a  week  and  are  high- 
ly paid.  I  mean  by  that  the  operator  is  paid  the  highest  of  all; 
we  have  operators  that  are  paid  $120  a  week;  the  minimum  is  $50. 
Th^y  produce  on  an  average  of  only  four  garments  a  day  for  each 
operator,  and,  as  stated  before,  we  are  bending  every  effort  to  in- 
crease this  average  production  to  at  least  six  garments  per  day  in 
order  to  lessen  the  price  of  the  garment  to  the  consumer  without  be- 
ing forced  to  furnish  cheaper  materials  in  order  to  meet  the  popular 
demand  for  lower  priced  garments.  If  the  enactment  of  this  bill 
would  slow  up  the  production  only  one  garment  per  machine  per 
two  days,  and  we  contend  it  will  be  greater,  it  will  raise  the  cost 
to  us  at  the  very  least  25  per  cent.  The  workers  in  our  industry 
work  on  week  work  and  not  on  piecework,  as  heretofore,  and  they 
are  only  looking  for  an  excuse  when  accused  of  soldiering  on  the 
job,  and  the  French-Capper  bill  will  be  blamed  for  the  slowing  up 
of  production  even  if  it  were  not  all  the  fault  of  the  bill. 

The  sub-manufacturers  who  have  these  week  workers  in  their 
shops  solicit  orders  from  our  members  on  a  very  close  margin,  some- 
times making  as  low  as  25  cents  on  a  garment,  and  depend  only  on 
the  volume  of  garments  they  can  produce  within  a  given  time  for 
their  profit.  I  might  say  incidentally,  in  rare  cases,  they  depend  on 
the  value  of  the  clippings  they  can  get  out  of  the  cuttings. 

There  is  employed  by  each  member  of  our  association,  or  the  du- 
ties filled  by  a  member  of  the  firm,  what  is  known  as  a  style  pro- 
ducer and  buyer.  To  this  party  these  sub-manufacturers  come  and 
display  sample  garments.     If  the  styles  shown  meet  with  the  ap- 


i  • 


proval  of  the  buyer,  he  usually  places  an  order  with  the  sub-manu- 
facturer under  styles  shown,  or  will  make  such  changes  as  he  thinks 
might  increase  the  selling  possibility  of  the  style.  Sometimes  it  is 
made  of  a  checked  jacket,  a  broadcloth  vest,  and  a  plain-woolen 
material  skirt,  necessitating  under  the  proposed  bill,  if  enacted, 
three  labels  to  this  particular  garment.  This  sub-manufacturer  is 
furnished  with  enough  materials  to  cover  the  amount  of  the  order 
placed  with  him,  and  if  the  order  he  has  received  from  one  of  our 
members  is  not  large  enough  for  the  capacity  of  his  plant,  he  keeps 
on  soliciting  more  orders  from  other  garment  manufacturers,  re- 
ceiving from  each  garment  manufacturer  the  cloth  for  the  garments 
ordered,  together  with  the  labels,  and  before  he  is  through,  and 
especially  at  the  beginning  of  a  season,  he  may  have  had  to  secure 
orders  from  ten  or  more  garment  manufacturers  with  as  many 
kinds  of  materials  and  the  labels  that  go  with  them  before  he  is  able 
to  keep  his  plant  going  a  reasonable  length  of  time. 

He  is  skilled  in  the  producing  of  garments  to  a  high  degree,  he 
knows  economy  to  the  nth  degree,  but  that  is  all  that  he  does  know, 
or  if  he  does  know  more,  cares  little  about  it.  He  is  only  interested 
in  getting  his  orders  and  fighting  for  his  price,  and  after  having  re- 
ceived his  orders  to  produce  his  garments  as  economically  as  he  can, 
and  if  anybody  knows  that  it  is  the  sub-manufacturer  in  our  in- 
dustry. 

TROUBLES  LABELS  REQUIRED  BY  PROPOSED  LAW  WOULD  CAUSE. 

Having  this  in  mind,  he  can  not  cut  a  single  size  of  any  order 
unless  he  has  enough  orders  to  make  a  full  lay ;  that  is,  to  the  capac- 
ity of  the  electric-cutting  machine  that  he  uses.  In  making  this 
lay  he  uses  the  materials  best  suited  for  this  purpose  irrespective 
of  what  manufacturer  it  comes  from.  Materials  vary  in  width,  run- 
ning after  sponging  from  48  to  56  inches  in  width,  and  in  order 
not  to  waste  material  he  must  cut  all  the  same  widths  together. 

When  the  lay  is  completed  the  cutter  lays  out  the  pattern  and 
must  chalk  out  his  pattern  inside  the  selvage,  and  when  he  is  through 
cutting  out  the  garments  the  original  marks  of  identification  that 
the  proposed  bill,  if  enacted,  would  compel  the  mills  to  put  upon 
their  materials,  together  with  the  license  number,  will  have  been 

obliterated. 

When  the  garments  are  cut,  they  are  sent  to  the  assorter  who  as- 
sorts the  bundles. 

There  is  again  a  lining  cutter,  who  cuts  the  linings,  and  they  are 

assorted  in  separate  bundles. 

The  cloth  bundles  are  sent  to  the  basters,  who  baste  in  the  canvas, 
•  and  then  they  go  to  the  operator,  who  sews  the  garment  on  his 
machine.  Then  it  goes  to  the  underpresser,  from  there  to  the  tailor, 
who  sews  in  the  lining  and  all  other  necessary  handwork,  from  there 
to  the  buttonhole  maker,  and  then  to  the  uppresser,  and  finally  to 
the  finisher,  the  cheapest-paid  labor  of  all,  and  it  is  this  person's 
duty  to  put  the  finishing  touches  to  the  garment,  put  on  the  buttons 
and  other  necessary  trimming,  and  sew  on  the  proposed  label. 

All  this  time  the  hundreds  and  hundreds  of  labels  that  this  sub- 
manufacturer  has  gathered  from  the  various  garment  manufacturers 
from  whom  he  received  orders  are  either  in  his  office,  if  he  has  any, 
or  been  handed  to  his  foreman,  who  places  in  the  basket  of  the  fin- 


I 


«  4 


8 


isher  as  many  labels  as  necessary,  and,  mark  you,  in  many  instances 
it  may  require  two  or  three  labels  for  a  single  garment,  and  he  or  she 
simply  reaches  in  the  basket,  picks  up  and  sews  on  the  first  label 
he  or  she  comes  to.  It  would  be  utterly  impossible  for  the  finishers 
to  pick  out  the  proper  labels,  if  they  were  able  to,  for  as  stated  be- 
fore, in  the  majority  of  instances  they  are  unable  to  read  and  write 
English,  and  even  if  they  were  they  have  no  expert  knowledge  of 
cloths.  The  bill,  if  enacted,  would  have  to  be  enforced,  and  it  would 
necessitate  in  this  sub-manufacturer's  place  of  business  experts  far 
beyond  the  caliber  of  people  in  his  employ  and  at  such  increased 
expense  and  such  waste  of  time  as  to  materially  reduce  his  pro- 
duction to  such  an  extent  that  the  price  of  the  garment,  due  to 
the  cost  of  producing  the  garment,  would  almost  double. 

INDUSTRY  IS  SEASONABLE  AND  LARGE  PRODUCTION  IS  NECESSARY. 

Ours  is  a  seasonable  industry.  It  is  absolutely  essential  in  our 
industry  that  the  shortest  possible  time  must  elapse  from  the  re- 
ceipt of  its  order  to  its  delivery.  Garments  come  into  our  place  of 
business  commencing  about  four  o'clock  daily  in  enormous  quantities, 
and  must  be  examined,  charged,  and  shipped  that  very  same  day. 
In  order  to  live  up  to  the  full  provisions  of  the  proposed  bill,  if 
enacted,  it  would  entail  upon  us  the  employment  of  a  force  much 
greater  than  the  present  force  used  in  the  receiving  and  shipping  of 
garments,  and  after  we  had  gone  to  all  that  expense  we  could  still 
not  be  certain  that  the  right  labels  were  on  the  right  garments.  If 
a  certain  material  is  in  vogue,  or  a  certain  shade  is  in  vogue,  the 
demand  for  that  particular  material  or  particular  shade  is  so  great 
that  we  are  compelled  to  buy  the  material  from  as  many  mills  or 
from  any  place  or  from  any  cloth  jobber  from  whom  we  can  obtain 
it.  We  even  have  to  go  so  far  as  to  call  upon  other  garment  manu- 
facturers to  help  each  other  out  in  their  dire  needs  of  that  particular 
material  or  shade.  These  various  materials  are  furnished  by  us  to 
the  sub-manufacturer;  they  are  all  more  or  less  similar  in  char- 
acter, but  the  component  parts  of  wool  or  shoddy  might  be  greater 
or  less  in  one  or  the  other,  and  while  it  might  be  true  that  by  the 
mark  required  to  be  put  upon  the  material  by  the  proposed  bill 
we  would  absolutely  know  the  composition  of  the  material  when 
it  went  to  the  sub-manufacturer,  yet  after  the  process  heretofore 
outlined  had  been  resorted  to  in  the  course  of  manufacture  and  all 
markings  necessary  obliterated  we  would  have  no  possible  means 
of  knowing  from  which  mill  the  material  of  each  garment  came,  and 
I  doubt  if  the  mill  men  themselves  would  be  able  to  detect  their 
own  materials. 

The  passing  of  this  truth  in  fabric  bill  would  impede  the  progress 
and  reduce  the  output  of  our  industry,  in  which  millions  of  dollars 
are  invested,  to  an  alarming  extent,  and  to  one  that  might  result  very 
disastrously,  with  no  resultant  benefit  to  the  consumer.* 

Therefore,  on  behalf  of  the  association  that  I  represent,  and  on 
behalf  of  our  industry,  and  for  the  reasons  just  stated,  and  for  the 
further  reasons  that,  first,  it  improperly  and  incorrectly  attacks  the 
question  of  misrepresentation  of  merchandise;  second,  it  sets  up 
false  standards  for  judging  the  different  kinds  and  grades  of  fab- 
rics; third,  it  will  seriously  impair  and  impede  commercial  progress; 


I 


% 


^'^  •% 


L  ♦ 


fourth,  that  it  will  entail  an  unnecessary  expense  in  the  production 
cost  of  merchandise  without  benefit  to  the  consumer— I  desire  to 
go  on  record  as  opposing  the  passage  of  this  bill.  (Hearings,  pp. 
351-357.) 

TERM    VIRGIN   WOOL  WOULD   COVER   MANY   REJECTED   FABRICS. 

Mr  Sigmund  B.  Sonneborn,  Manufacturer  of  men's  clothing, 
Baltimore,  Md.  My  opposition  to  the  bill,  Mr.  Chairman,  is  due 
to  the  fact  that  I  believe  that  calling  anything  virgin  wool  and  put- 
ting it  out  to  the  consumer  is  bound  to  mislead  the  consumer.  We 
have  to  ask  ourselves:  What  is  pretended  to  be  meant  by  virgin 
wool?  If  the  name  "virgin  wool"  would  be  applied  to  all  the  fabrics 
that  are  really  made  of  virgin  wool  it  would  cover  a  great  many 
fabrics  which  we  have  discarded  from  use  because  we  know  that 
they  are  too  poor  to  be  used.  They  are  unsatisfactory  goods.  In 
other  words,  the  words  "virgin  wool"  could  be  used  on  classes  of 
goods  which  we  would  not  think  of  using,  because  they  would  not 
give  real  sati"='faction. 

Senator  Watson.  Would  this  labeling  proposition  injure  you 
or  help  you,  or  make  any  difference  to  you? 

Mr.  Sonneborn.  Well,  it  would  be  very  difficult  to  say.  I  do 
not  think  it  would  injure  us;  I  do  not  think  it  would  help  us.  I 
think  it  would  befuddle  the  consumer. 

Senator  Watson.     You  think  it  would  befuddle  the  consumer? 

Mr.  Sonneborn.  Yes;  and  it  would  certainly  add  a  considerable 
amount  of  unnecessary  work  to  the  clothing  manufacturer,  especi- 
ally if  the  question  is  to  be  asked :  How  is  it  going  to  be  marked 
on  the  suit?  Is  it  going  to  go  on  the  coat  only?  Is  it  going  to  go 
on  the  vest?  Is  it  going  to  go  down  on  the  trousers,  because 
trousers  are  sold  separate  and  coats  are  sold  separate.  If  you  figure 
that  the  label  is  sewed  on,  and  then  figure  the  branding  of  it,  the 
making  of  it,  the  sewing  on  of  it,  I  should  judge  that  the  pure  labor 
of  attaching  the  labels  on  every  suit  of  clothes  would  burden  that 
suit  around  from  15  cents  to  a  quarter,  because  the  way  suits  ot 
clothes  are  made— we  manufacture  suits  m  layers,  and  we  will 
take  a  blue  cloth  and  lay  it  on  the  table,  and  right  on  top  of  it  we 
may  put  a  green  one,  and  next  to  it  we  may  put  a  brown  one, 
and  then  again  a  blue  one,  and  we  can  lay  that  up  three  or  four  or 
five  or  six  or  seven  high ;  I  think  that  is  about  as  high  as  we  will 
go,  and  then  they  afterwards  are  separated  in  manufacture.  No; 
if  you  were  to  st^mp  every  one  of  these  goods,  that  would  mean  a 
great  deal  of  work  that  would  finally  have  to  be  charged  to  the 
consumer,  and  would  add  considerable  to  the  cost.  (Hearings,  pp. 
335-343.) 

labeling  of  garments  would  be  tremendously  deceptive. 

Mr.  George  S.  Lewy,  Representing  the  Dress  and  Waist  Manu- 
facturers' Association,  New  York  City.  Mr.  Chairman  and  members 
of  the  committee,  in  behalf  of  the  members  of  the  association  who 
manufacture  dresses,  and  speaking  also  for  the  Association  of  Dress 
Manufacturers,  I  desire  to  submit  the  following  comments  for  your 
consideration  in  connection  with  the  French-Capper  bill : 

First.   It  appears  to  us  that  the  labeling  of  materials  used  in 


•  -• 


10 


garments  must  result  in  an  increased  cost  to  the  consumer.  At 
present  thoroughly  dependable  worsted  and  woolen  materials  of 
good  wearing  qualities  are  used  to  make  dresses,  and  they  give 
satisfaction  to  the  consumer.  We  do  not  know  whether  or  not  they 
contain  shoddy,  but  if  they  do  and  the  proposed  measure  is  enacted 
into  law,  it  will  be  impossible  to  use  such  materials  any  longer,  as 
the  consumer  is  not  sufficiently  educated  in  materials  to  understand 
that  a  shoddy  content  may  not  at  all  affect  their  wearing  quality, 
and  will  fight  shy  of  a  material  not  labeled  "virgin  wool."  The 
cloth  to  replace  the  materials  first  mentioned  will  cost  more,  we 
must  assume. 

Senator  Watson.  You  are  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  ladies' 
wear? 

Mr.  Lewy.  No,  sir;  I  am  the  secretary  of  the  trade  association; 
the  trade's  manufacturers. 

Senator  Watson.  This  has  reference,  of  course,  to  women's 
dresses  altogether? 

Mr.  Lewy.    Yes;  entirely. 

Senator  Watson.  How  many  members  are  there  in  your  asso- 
ciation? 

Mr.  Lewy.  In  our  particular  association,  185;  but  in  the  Asso- 
ciated Dress  Industries  of  America,  we  have  close  to  500  members; 
that  is  a  national  organization.  .  .  . 

The  verv  word  shoddy  is  distasteful  to  the  ordinary  consumer  who 
does  not  know  that  it  stands  for  wool  used  over  again,  but  does 
believe  that  shoddy  means  something  bad. 

Second.  A  cloth  may  be  made  wholly  of  virgin  wool  and  still  be 
far  inferior  to  and  have  poorer  wearing  qualities  than  one  with  a 
shoddy  content,  though  costing  more. 

THE  PUBLIC  WOULD  BE  MISLED. 

Third.  The  public  will  be  misled  by  the  virgin-wool  label,  and 
instead  of  depending  upon  the  reputation  and  reliability  of  the 
retailer,  who,  to  guard  that  reputation  is  certain  to  see  that  the 
dresses  he  sells  are  made  of  serviceable  materials,  will  depend  upon 
the  label  solely.  Two  dresses  may  be  manufactured  of  exactly  the 
same  style,  the  one  from  a  material  of  low-grade  virgin  wool,  the 
other  from  a  material  of  high-grade  virgin  wool.  The  one  made  of 
the  low-grade  material  will  naturally  sell  for  less  than  that  made 
from  the  high-grade  material ;  yet  both  dresses  will  carry  exactly  the 
same  virgin-wool  label,  and  the  public  will  be  deluded  into  buying 
a  poor  article  simply  because  its  price  is  lower.  While  apparently 
cheaper,  the  lower  priced  article  may  in  reality  be  more  expensive 
in  the  end  than  the  higher  priced.  The  label  has  been  of  no  assist- 
ance whatever  to  the  consumer,  but  has  simply  misled  her. 

Fourth.  The  business  of  the  dress  manufacturer  who  would  use 
high-jrrade  virgin-wool  materials,  and  who  has  a  reputation  to 
maintain,  would  suffer  from  the  competition  of  the  dress  manufac- 
turer who  would  use  low-grade  virgin-wool  materials,  and  who 
could  undersell  him  style  for  style ;  that  is,  two  styles  may  be  made, 
one  of  a  low  grade,  and  the  other  of  a  high  grade,  and  the  low 
grade  would  outsell  the  other,  because  of  the  label. 


i 


4 


i.  ♦ 


11 


depend   UPON    MATERIALS    BOUGHT   FROM    REPUTABLE    MILLS— NOT   ON 

PRICE  ALONE. 

Our  experience  in  buying  cloth  has  taught  us  to  depend  on 
materials  bought  from  reputable  mills  in  whose  output  we  have 
confidence  and  whose  goods  have  proven  satisfactory,  rather  than 
to  be  attracted  by  price  alone.  We  could  continue  to  so  depend  and 
would  prefer  to  buy  a  wool  fabric,  even  though  it  may  contain 
shoddy,  which  had  previously  given  satisfaction  rather  than  buy  a 
virgin  wool  fabric  without  any  reputation  behind  it. 

Our  success,  however,  in  convincing  our  customers  that  the  gar- 
ment labeled  as  containing  shoddy  is  exactly  the  same  o^e  that  had 
hitherto  proven  satisfactory  without  the  label  would  be  highly  prob- 
lematical. In  fact,  we  believe  we  could  not  convince  them,  no  mat- 
ter how  meritorious  the  cloth  might  be.  We  prefer  to  continue  doing 
business  along  the  established  lines  of  confidence,  rather  than  be 
pLged  into  I  mass  of  experimentation  at  a  time  of  readjustment 

^^Fifth  The  bill  appears  to  us  to  be  class  legislation.  If  it  be 
necessary  for  the  protection  of  the  public  to  label  wool  materials  as 
to  their  content,  it  should  follow  that  .^^tl^^r,,"^^*^"^^^,  ^^^^^^.^ 
labeled  also.  Silk  materials  often  contain  cotton  or  other  admix- 
turesf  linen  materials  often  contain  cotton,  although  ^t  h-  n-er 
been  maintained  to  our  knowledge,  that  linen  mixed  with  cotton  is 
not  a  thoroughly  dependable  material.  Selecting  wool  alone  to  be 
placarded  as  to  whether  or  not  it  has  entered  into  ^  c^^*^  m  ^^^^^ 
unction  with  other  fibers,  some  of  which  may  be  wool,  appears  to 
be  class  legislation  pure  and  simple  in  favor  of  a  very  small  portion 
of  the  public  at  large,  and  having  for  its  admitted  purpose  the 

^txT'we  tli^t  1t^L"u?d'be  almost  impossible  to  enforce  the 
provisions  of  the  bill.  It  has  been  admitted  by  the  Proponents  that 
shoddv  cannot  be  detected  once  it  is  mixed  with  v^^^i^  .^Z^^;^  J^^^^^ 
is  nothing,  therefore,  to  prevent  a  manufacturer  of  c  oth  with  an 

atrophied^'conscience^and  t  be  -f^-^^^-^^^^^r^o'^rl 

with  virgin  wool  and  labeling  the  product  "virgin  wool.  To  pre- 
vent this  would  entail  the  maintenance  of  a  large  foijse  of  ^nsP^tors 
throughout  the  country  at  a  large  expense,  and  the  result  would 
hardly  justify  the  expense,  as  the   consumer  would  be  protected 

'"^  siventh'""  A  repres^'entative  of  the  dvers  and  cleaners  stated  that 
his  industry  was  suffering  because  it  did  not  know  the^omposition 
of  the  cloth  that  entered  into  the  garments  given  over  to  be  re-dyed 
or  cleaned.    He  believed  that  the  label  would  solve  this  difficulty. 

WHAT  CONSUMERS  WOULD  DO  WITH   THE  LABELS. 

It  is  safe  to  assert  that  the  first  thing  a  consumer  would  do 
would  be  to  rip  out  any  label  that  would  indicate  the  garment  she 
may  have  had  the  courage  to  purchase  containing  shoddy,  it  is  a 
known  fact  in  our  industry  that  women  will  remove  from  a  gar- 
ment the  label  of  a  high-class  dealer  and  sew  it  ^nto  successive  gar- 
ments for  years  and  years,  but  there  is  no  probability  that  this 
would  happen  with  the  label  under  discussion, 


« •• 


.  * 


12 


That  is  a  fact,  they  will  take  the  label  of  a  garment  from  a  very 
high-class  dealer  and  sew  it  into  another  garment. 

Further,  the  same  gentleman  stated  that  it  was  the  hope  of  the 
dyers  and  cleaners  that  the  bill  would  reduce  the  establishments  in 
that  industry  from  200,000  to  50,000  or  100,000,  so  that  the  interest 
of  the  dyers  and  cleaners  in  the  measure  can  hardly  be  viewed  as 
purely  altruistic. 

Eighth.  In  conclusion,  our  argument  may  be  summed  up  as 
follows : 

The  proponents  desire  to  sell  mpre  wool  by  barring  shoddy  en- 
tirely, as  it  is  almost  certain  that  no  matter  how  small  the  admix- 
ture of  shoddy,  consumers  will  not  buy  anything  labeled  shoddv. 
That  this  is  also  the  belief  of  the  proponents  of  the  bill  is  clearly  evi- 
denced by  section  14,  which  provides: 

The  term  "shoddy"  shall  include  any  material  obtained  from  any 
fabric  or  clipping  of  cloth  of  any  fiber  whatever,  or  secured  from 
rags  or  from  used  apparel  of  any  description,  or  any  fiber  that  has 
been  previously  spun  or  woven  into  cloth,  as  well  as  wood,  hemp, 
jute,  flax,  and  hair  fiber  not  properly  classed  as  wool  of  any  de- 
scription, and  from  whatever  source  obtained. 

The  term  "shoddy"  as  understood  in  trade  circles  hitherto  has 
meant  reworked  wool.  The  new  definition  here  given  it,  and  piling 
upon  it  the  responsibility  of  being  spokesman  for  wood,  hemp,  jute, 
flax,  hair,  and  even  feathers,  must  clearly  indicate  that  the  propo- 
nents desire  to  bury  it  beyond  any  hope  of  resurrection,  and  to 
make  it  stand  for  something  even  more  sinister  than  the  meaning  it 
already  has  in  the  public's  understanding.  Why,  it  might  as  well 
have  been  defined  "shoddy,  anv  old  junk  that  is  not  virgin  wool." 
(See  Hearings,  pp.  344,  345,  346.) 

Mr.  William  Goldman,  of  New  York,  clothing  manufacturer; 
formerly  president  of  the  National  Association  of  Clothing  Manu- 
facturers, and  at  present  chairman  of  the  Mutual  Adjustment  Bu- 
reau of  the  Cloth  and  Garment  Trade.  The  proposal  to  label  gar- 
ments so  as  to  indicate  the  constituent  elements  of  the  fabrics  of 
which  they  are  manufactured,  accurately  and  in  detail,  is  objected 
to  by  the  clothing  manufacturer  because  he  believes — 

First.  That  no  such  legislation  is  demanded  by  the  consumer, 
nor  is  required  in  the  interest  of  the  consumer,  and  the  advocacy 
of  such  legislation  is  confined  largely  to  those  who  would  be  the 
beneficiaries  of  the  enactment. 

Second.  That  it  is  impractical,  and  that  violations  of  the  law. 
if  enacted,  can  not  be  prevented. 

Third.  That  it  is  uneconomic  in  that  its  effect  would  be  to  cur- 
tail the  consumption  of  reworked  wool  and  wool  substitutes  and 
raise  the  price  of  wool. 

Fourth.  That  it  is  misleading  to  the  consumer  in  that  it  seeks  to 
convey  to  him  that  wear  and  service  are  definitely  related  to  the 
percentage  of  virgin  wool  contained  in  the  fabric.  .  .  . 

When  we  undertake  to  denounce  reworked  wool  or  wool  substi 
tutes  we  are  doing' everything  that  we  possibly  can  to  raise  the  price 
of  raw  wool  through  larger  consumption  and  make  it  cost  more  and 


13 


to  reduce  the  consumption  and  conservation  of  the  waste  materials, 
which  have  come  to  play  such  an  important  role  in  the  sound  econ- 
omy of  the  world. 

But  the  labeling  of  these  garments  would  be  tremendously  de- 
ceptive to  the  consumer.    Let  me  illustrate. 

One  class  of  fabric  that  is  very  widely  sold  to-day  is  a  28  to  32 
ounce  all-wool  fleecy  overcoating.  These  goods  are  fluffy  and  beau- 
tiful to  look  at.  They  will  not  wear,  and  yet  they  can  be  labeled  "all 
virgin  wool."  Whereas  there  are  numerous  makes  of  fine  kersey 
and  melton  overcoatings,  the  very  finest,  in  fact,  that  are  made  up 
in  the  world,  that  have  a  very  large  percentage  of  shoddy  or  re- 
worked wool  in  them,  and  there  is  practically  no  wear  out  to  these 
fabrics.  The  consumer  can  get  good  service  out  of  them  for  many 
years.  And  yet  it  is  deliberately  sought  to  pervert  men's  minds 
and  to  destroy  their  respect  for  these  worthy  fabrics. 

There  are  numerous  examples  of  cheap  all-worsted  suitings  made. 
They  are  flimsy,  they  will  not  hold  seams,  they  will  give  no  wear, 
and  yet  can  be  labeled  "strictly  virgin  wool,"  whereas  if  cotton  is 
introduced  into  the  warp  or  weft  and  mixed  with  this  wool  a  very 
good  wearing  fabric  will  be  provided  for  the  man  of  very  moderate 
means. 

In  the  case  of  cassimere  suitings  we  frequently  encounter  strictly 
virgin-wool  fabrics  that  have  neither  selling  quality  nor  wearing 
quality  to  commend  them.  They  are  flimsy  and  unreliable.  On  the 
other  hand,  we  find  innumerable  examples  of  suitings  which  con- 
tain a  moderate  admixture  of  reworked  wool  or  shoddy  which  are 
firm,  hold  their  shape,  give  excellent  wear,  and  provide  as  satisfac- 
tory clothing  as  there  is  manufactured. 

I  might  go  on  and  give  numerous  illustrations  of  how  "all  wool" 
•means  absolutely  nothing  so  far  as  wear  and  quality  are  concerned, 
how  the  fabric  containing  either  shoddy  or  cotton  may  mean  every- 
thing in  the  life  and  servdce  of  the  fabric,  but  in  a  general  way  let  me 
say  that  the  percentage  of  cotton  or  shoddy  or  reworked  wool  or 
wool  substitutes  that  goes  into  a  fabric  gives  not  the  slightest  indica- 
tion of  the  wearing  quality  of  the  fabric.  Some  fabrics  made  en- 
tirely of  wool  would  be  unserviceable  and  impractical,  whereas 
with  the  introduction  of  a  certain  amount  of  cotton  or  shoddy  they 
may  be  made  to  give  the  service  required.  .  .  . 

Mr.  Goldman.  Here  are  three  samples  of  overcoat  fabric  that 
contain  a  large  percentage  of  shoddy,  of  reworked  wool. 

Senator  Watson.  Do  the  people  who  make  these  goods  say 
what  amount  of  wool  and  what  amount  of  shoddy  they  contain? 

Mr.  Goldman.    No,  sir. 

Senator  Watson.    How  do  you  know  what  they  contain^ 

Mr.  Goldman.  We  know  t^at  this  contains  shoddv,  and  they 
do  not  deny  that  it  contains  shoddy,  and  it  is  a  class  of  fabric  that 
practically  always  contains  shoddy.  These  are  kerseys  and  these 
others  are  meltons.  We  sell  these  garments  for  about  $10  more  than 
we  sell  these  others.  These  contain  about  10  per  cent  more  shoddy 
than  this  other.  Now,  I  want  to  make  a  conservative  statement,  and 
I  will  say  that  these  goods  that  contain  shoddy  will  wear  about  five 
times  longer  than  these  all  wool  goods.  That  is  our  experience  and 
is  the  experience  of  clothing  manufacturers  generally,  I  think.  .  .  , 


t »  •  # 


14 


PRICfES  FOR  RAG  CLIPS  SHOW  GREATER  REACTION  THAN  FOR  WOOU 

They  have  sought  to  create  the  impression  that  because  of  the 
present  system  the  price  of  shoddy  was  considerably  higher  than  it 
would  otherwise  be  and  was  costing  more  and  more.  The  reverse  is 
the  absolute  truth.  Clips  can  be  sold  to-day  for  only  a  very  small 
fraction  of  their  normal  price.  They  have  shown  an  even  greater 
reaction  in  price  than  has  raw  wool.  It  is  pretty  serious  business 
when  an  attempt  is  made  like  this  one  in  a  time  when  business  de- 
pression has  created  tremendous  problems  for  all  industry,  and  every 
manufacturer  is  confronted  with  the  necessity  of  readjusting  him- 
self and  his  business  to  the  changed  conditions  that  have  come 
about,  for  a  relatively  small  industry  to  upset  vast  business  interests 
that  through  many,  many  generations  have  developed  certain  types 
of  fabrics  which  long  experience  shows  to  be  those  best  suited 
to  our  national  requirements  and  not  a  moment^s  consideration 
should  be  given  to  the  attempts  to  put  through  any  such  bill  as  is 
now  proposed. 

The  clothing  manufacturer,  if  this  legislation  is  adopted,  will 
not  sell  any  less  clothing.  He  will  make  up  whatever  fabrics  the 
market  offers  and  will  not  be  injured  in  his  pocketbook  one  way 
or  the  other,  and  my  appearance  here  is  not  because  of  any  finan- 
cial interest  that  the  c^othino:  manufacturer  has  in  this  legislation, 
other  than  the  added  cost  of  labeling,  which  he  must  pass  on  to  the 
consumer.  But  my  appearance  here  is  to  try  to  block  an  attempt 
to  fool  the  consumer  of  clothing  by  misleading  him  as  to  the  wearing 
qualities  of  the  clothes  that  he  is  to  buy,  to  oppose  something  that 
is  so  uneconomic  and  unsound  as  this  legislation  would  be,  and  also 
because  I  realize  fully  what  it  means  to  a  vast  number  of  woolen 
manufacturers  who  have  through  years  of  patient  study  and  experi-. 
mentation  developed  fabrics  that  they  know  will  give  eminent  satis- 
faction to  the  consumer  through  a  proper  admixture  of  wool  and  re- 
worked wool,  and  who  would  now  be  compelled  perhaps  to  change 
their  machinery  and  their  product  in  an  effort  to  find  themselves 
under  the  new  regulations. 

COMPLAINTS?    ARE    AGAINST    CONSTRUCTION,    NOT    AGAINST    MATERIALS 

USED. 

I  have  one  or  two  other  matters  that  I  want  to  touch  on,  if  you 
please.  I  referred  to  the  fact  that  I  was. the  chairman  of  the  Mu- 
tual Adjustment  Bureau  of  the  cloth  and  garment  trade.  We  have 
thousands  of  cases,  in  the  course  of  a  year,  that  come  before  that 
bureau  for  adjustment.  I  have  never  yet  heard  of  a  single  instance 
where  any  case  has  been  brought  before  that  board  that  had  any- 
thing to  do  with  the  fact  that  the  fabric  contained  reworked  wool 
instead  of  new  wool.  Our  complaints  that  come  before  that  board 
have  largely  to  do  with  the  construction  of  the  fabric.  Whether  it 
be  all  wool  or  all  worsted  or  all  cotton,  or  whatever  it  may  be,  we 
never  have  had  any  complaints  that  I  know  of  come  before  that  or- 
ganization with  regard  to  reworked  wool  in  the  fabric.  .  .  . 

Senator  Fernald.  Why  should  there  be  a  difference  of  $10? 
Does  it  cost  you  any  more  in  the  way  of  labor  to  manufacture  a 
suit  containing  nothing  but  virgin  wool  than  one  containing  shoddy? 
See  if  you  can  answer  that  question.  ... 


^1^ 


15 


Mr.  Goldman.  A  coat  made  up  of  this  material  (exhibiting  a 
piece  of  melton  cloth)  is  made  up  differently  than  this  (exhibit- 
ing a  piece  of  fleecy  cloth).  I  did  not  intentionally  intend  to  mis- 
lead you  by  my  statement.  It  probably  is  not  fair.  But  when  we 
get  a  fabric  of  this  smooth  surface  it  becomes  a  more  dressy  over- 
coat and  we  put  more  tailoring  into  it,  and  that  is  one  of  the  things 
that  most  people  cannot  understand  about  the  clothing  business.  We 
start  to  show,  say,  eight  grades  of  clothing.  The  lowest  grade  has 
one  type  of  lining  in  it;  the  next  grade  has  a  little  better  lining 
and  the  next  grade  has  a  still  better  lining.  Then  we  have  the  same 
thing  in  the  matter  of  tailoring.  We  grade  our  goods  up  from  the 
lowest,  and  they  gradually  rise  and  everything  rises  with  them.  The 
cloth  is  only  one  factor,  but  as  the  cloth  gets  better  everything  else 
goes  up  with  that  better  cloth.  So  it  is  with  this  overcoat.  If  we 
are  going  to  get  this  dressier  overcoat  we  put  more  into  it,  and  it 
costs  $10  more  to  make  it,  although  the  cloth  in  one  case  is  shoddy, 
where  this  is  all  wool.    That  is  the  situation. 

Senator  Gooding.     And  it  will  wear  five  times  as  long? 

Mr.  Goldman.    And  it  will  wear  five  times  as  long. 

Senator  Gooding.  I  want  you  to  repeat  that  so  we  will  have 
that  in  the  record. 

Mr.  Goldman.    Yes,  sir;  it  will  wear  five  times  as  long. 

Senator  Gooding.     That  is  what  I  want  to  get  into  the  record. 

Mr.  Goldman.  I  want  to  make  this  point,  too:  There  has  been 
a  statement  made  here  to  the  effect  that  big  prices  have  been  gotten 
for  shoddy  fabrics.  Now,  I  simply  want  you  men  to  realize  that 
there  is  not  anything  manufactured  in  this  country,  m  my  beliet, 
that  is  sold  on  a  narrower  margin  of  profit  than  woolen  and  worsted 
goods.     This  business  is  the  most  keenly  competitive  business  that  I 

Senator  Gooding.    Do  you  mean  that  the  retailer  makes  a  smaller 

^^Mr.'  (30LDMAN.  No;  the  manufacturers  of  the  cloth.  The  reason 
I  say  that  is  this :  They  are  dealing  with  about  the  shrewdest  buyers 
in  America,  men  that  thoroughly  understand  their  business,  men 
who  will  go  from  one  to  the  other  to  save  2^/2  to  5  cents  a  yard,  and 
the  business,  therefore,  is  keenlv  competitive,  and  the  goods  are  sold 
on  the  narrowest  of  margins.  In  my  opinion  there  is  nothing  manu- 
factured in  America  that  is  sold  on  a  narrower  margin  of  profit. 
And  nobody  knows  that  better  than  Mr.  Walker  himself.  He  is  in 
the  woolen  manufacturing  business,  and  he  knows  how  keenly  com- 
petitive that  business  is,  and  he  knows  that  nobody  is  getting  away 
with  murder  on  the  price  of  any  shoddy  fabrics  or  any  other  fabric 
in  the  clothing  business  and  stay  in  the  business  very  long.  (Hear- 
ings, pp.  220-244.) 

IP  bill  is  PASSED,  LOW-GRAUK  WOOL  WOULD  BE  USED. 

Mr.  a.  L.  Gipford,  Selling  Agent  for  the  Worurabo  Manufacturing 
Co.  If  the  French-Capper  bill  were  to  become  a  law  it  is  my  belief 
that  the  most  noteworthy  result  would  be  a  prompt  increase  in  the 
production  of  fabrics  made  from  low-grade  virgin  wool,  owing  to 
the  fact  that  the  labels  on  such  materials  would  be  the  same  as  that 
on  fine-quality  goods  made  by  such  mills  as  the  one  X  represent, 


w»  *'■• 


16 

fw^T^  fl  ^^^  ^u""^^  difference  in  value  would  probably  range  from 
two  to  five  dollars  per  yard.  j         &        wxu 

On  many  of  the  fabrics  made  by  the  Worumbo  Mills,  which  I 
represent,  Practically  our  only  competitor  is  the  Eur6pean  manu- 
facturer. The  French-Capper  bill  would  exercise  no  control  over 
the  foreign  manufacturer  who  desires  to  evade  its  provisions.  The 
torei^n  manufacturer  may  declare  his  product  to  be  100  per  cent 
virgin  wool.  After  delivery  has  been  made  in  this  country  Gov- 
ernment agents  may  question  the  quality  of  the  delivery;  but  if 
the  Amencan  agent  could  show  a  statement  from  the  foreign  manu- 
facturer to  the  effect  that  the  shipment  was  100  per  cent  virgin 
wool  the  Government  would  be  powerless  to  proceed.  Furthermore, 
even  if  the  matenal  did  contain  shoddy,  it  would  be  impossible  to 
prove  it.  As  I  stated  at  the  outset,  I  am  not  a  woolen  manufac- 
turer, but  it  is  my  belief  that  if  you  wish  to  know  accurately  how 
much  shoddy  there  is  in  a  piece  of  woolen  goods  the  only  sure  way 
to^determme  it  is  to  see  it  put  into  the  goods  at  the  mill.    (Hear- 

Mr.  Frederick  W  Tipper,  of  New  York,  Selling  Agent  for  woolen 
mills,  l^ashion  m  clothes  causes  a  demand  for  a  great  variety  of 
patterns  and  fabrics,  but  as  far  as  possible,  manufacturers  of 
woolens  standardize  their  goods  so  that  the  trade  knows  each  season 
what  a  tabric  is  without  having  to  experiment  with  it 

In  the  manufacture  of  these  various  cloths  from  wool  many 
tactore  must  be  taken  into  consideration.  The  principal  of  these 
are:    (1)  Raw  materials,  (2)  the  structure,  (3)  the  finish 

No  matter  how  good  the  raw  materials  used,  whether  they  are 
classified  as  "virgin  wooP'  or  "shoddy,"  unless  the  other  factors 
mentioned  are  earned  out  correctly,  an  unsei-viceable  fabric  will 
result. 

When  the  Quartermaster's  Department  required  fabrics  for  suits 
and  overcoatings  for  the  soldiers  in  the  World  War,  the  woolen 
T'Inn  '^"^  ^^^e  n<^t  allowed  simply  to  make  up  an  0.  D.  suiting 
ot  lUO  per  cent  virgin  wool  or  an  overcoating  made  with  the  re- 
quired percentages  of  virgin  wool  and  shoddy.  If  this  had  been 
allowed,  the  army  would  have  been  clothed  in  a  hundred  different 
tabncs  and  each  one  of  varying  strength,  appearance,  and  wearing 
qualities. 

To  the  contrary,  every  detail  was  laid  out  in  the  specifications— 
the  quality  of  wool,  the  number  of  threads,  the  size  of  threads,  and 
the  finish  were  all  specifically  stated.  Even  under  these  conditions 
It  IS  well  known  that  some  mills  turned  out  much  better  ^'abrics 
than  others. 

PROPOSED  LAW  WOULD  CAUSE  MISREPRESENTATION. 

„  J^.^^^mJ*  conviction  that  if  the  provisions  of  the  so-called  truth-in- 
tabnc  bill  became  law,  the  stamping  of  the  fabrics  with  the  per- 
«-nta-es  of  unscientifically  classified  "fibers"  would  not  only  fail  to 
give  the  consumer  any  idea  of  value  but  would  actually  cause  mis- 
representation. 

The  misleading  ideas  which  would  be  conveved  to  the  consumer 
under  the  provisions  of  the  proposed  bill  can  be  readily  seen  by  the 
comparison  of  a  few  of  the  fabrics  which  are  on  the  market  at  the 
present  time. 


17 


I  wish  to  present  to  the  committee  at  this  time  a  sheet  containing 
samples  of  cloth. 

Sheet  A  shows  five  men's  suiting  fabrics,  all  of  which  would  be 
marked  "100  per  cent  virgin  wool."  The  difference  in  the  cost  of 
raw  materials  and  of  manufacture  is  so  great  that  the  price  of  the 
goods  varies  from  approximately  $1.80  to  over  $4  per  yard,  and  it 
will  readily  be  seen  that  the  appearance  and  quality  vary  in  the 
same  way;  the  marking,  therefore,  would  give  no  guide  to  their 
value.  Sample  No.  1  is  sold  and  widely  advertised  as  "virgin" 
wool,  by  the  only  manufacturer  to  our  knowledge  who  so  advertises. 
It  is,  no  doubt,  made  of  virgin  wool,  and  it  is  good  advertising  to  say 
so.  The  stamping  of  goods  by  law  is,  however,  a  very  different 
matter  from  advertising.  If  it  is  "the  right  of  the  consumer  to  know," 
it  should  also  be  stated  that  it  is  made  of  low-grade  wool  with  very 
coarse  yarns  and  has  very  few  threads  to  the  inch.  In  other  words, 
its  structure  is  very  cheap. 

There  are  hundreds  of  new  wool  fabrics  made  in  this  country,  long 
established  on  the  market,  and  for  which  no  special  claims  are  made, 
that  are  vastly  superior  in  every  way  and  other  samples  on  this 
sheet  show  a  few  illustrations. 

The  conversion  costs  from  the  raw  material  to  the  finished  cloth 
of  sample  No.  5  must  be  approximately  three  times  as  much  as 
sample  No.  1. 

BRANDING  WOULD   GIVE   NO   GUIDE   OP   VALUE   TO   THE   PURCHASER. 

It  is  not  "Truth  in  fabric"  to  label  all  these  goods  alike— it  is 
only  part  of  the  truth,  and  a  very  small  part.  On  this  ground  alone 
we  believe  the  bill  should  not  be  enacted  into  law,  as  the  only  one 
to  benefit  would  be  the  manufacturer  of  the  cheaper  grades  of  new 
wool  goods,  and  the  consumer  could  have  no  possible  guide  to  their 
value  by  this  marking. 

I  might  say  here,  Senator,  that  I  purposely  did  not  include  the 
very  cheapest  of  the  new  wool  fabrics  on  that  sheet. 

Similarly,  on  sheet  AA,  I  show  a  few  ladies'  dress  goods  fabrics, 
to  which  the  same  general  conditions  apply. 

Senator  Fernald.    These  are  all  wool,  are  they? 

Mr.  Tipper.    Yes;  they  are  all  new  wool. 

Senator  Fernald.  Could  you  tell  that  they  were  all  virgin  wool 
if  you  did  not  have  a  statement  from  the  manufacturer? 

Mr.  Tipper.  Some  of  them;  yes.  These  three  (indicating  sam- 
ples) are  worsteds,  and  we  all  know  in  the  business  that  worsteds  can- 
not be  made  except  out  of  new  wool.  The  process  is  such  that  it 
cannot  be  done.  These  other  three  (exhibiting  three  other  samples) 
are  worsteds  made  in  the  same  way.  The  other  two  fabrics  we  could 
only  judge,  and  not  be  quite  sure  of,  because  it  would  be  possible 
to  use  some  grade  of  material  which  would  be  classified  as  shoddy 
under  the  proposed  bill,  which  might  give  just  the  same  appearance, 
and  it  would  be  impossible  to  detect  it. 

Sheet  B  shows  two  fabrics,  B-1  and  B-2.  Both  of  these  would  be 
marked  as  containing  shoddy,  but  the  shoddy  content  is  not  a  real 
guide  to  the  value.  B-2  is  very  much  finer,  has  more  threads,  and  is 
in  every  way  a  better  cloth  than  B-1.  ... 

Senator  Fernald.   How  do  you  know  there  is  shoddy  in  these? 


18 


Mr.  Tipper.    Because  the  manufacturer  told  me  so. 

Senator  Fernald.    That  is  the  only  way  you  could  determine? 

Mr.  Tipper.   Well,  it  is  the  only  way  I  could  be  sure. 

B-3  is  100  per  cent  virgin  wool,  whereas  B-4  contains  shoddy. 
B-4  has  been  made  by  the  same  mill  for  a  number  of  years,  has 
given  satisfactory  service,  and  for  the  average  man  (who  does  not 
have  a  number  of  suits  of  clothes)  is  a  much  more  satisfactory 
fabric.  Incidentally,  it  costs  more  and  sells  for  more  money  than 
B-3.  Here,  again,  a  statement  of  the  raw-material  content  is  no 
index  of  value. 

Sheet  C  shows  two  overcoatings.  Sample  C-1  contains  less  shoddy 
than  sample  C-2,  but  cannot  give  nearly  such  good  service.  Due  to 
the  same  conditions,  that  the  structure  and  the  finish  have  more 
bearing  than  the  raw  material.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  a  cloth- 
ing manufacturer,  before  putting  sample  C-2  in  his  line,  had  his 
chauffeur  wear  an  overcoat  made  from  this  fabric  throughout  last 
winter,  in  order  to  test  out  the  wearing  quality  of  the  fabric,  and 
found  it  stood  the  hard  test  excellently. 

Sheet  D  shows  the  comparison  between  overcoatings  which  would 
be  stamped  "virgin  wool"  and  fabrics  which  would  be  stamped  with 
percentages  of  shoddy.  D-1  and  D-2  are  virgin  wool  and  sell  at 
$3  and  over  $5,  respectively;  D-3  and  D-4  contain  shoddy;  both  of 
these  latter  samples  sell  at  less  money  than  D-1  and  less  than  half 
the  price  of  D-2.  In  spite  of  the  lower  prices,  there  can  be  no 
question  as  to  the  relative  wear  of  the  fabrics  shown;  D-3  and  D-4 
will  undoubtedly  give  better  service. 

RAW   MATERIAL   STATES    ONLY   PART   AND   A    MISLEADING    PART   OF   THE 

STORY. 

In  these  cases,  also,  raw  material  states  only  a  part  of  the  story 
and  what  can  be  a  very  misleading  part.  The  raw  materials  used  for 
all  the  samples  on  this  sheet  are  good  materials  and  can  be  made 
into  serviceable  fabrics  or  unserviceable  fabrics — ^it  is  the  structure 
and  finish  which  have  a  much  greater  bearing  on  the  wearing  quality 
than  the  raw  material. 

It  has  also  been  emphatically  stated  by  the  principal  supporters 
of  the  proposed  bill  that  manufacturers  use  shoddy  in  their  goods  in 
order  to  deceive  the  public  and  obtain  the  price  of  virgin  wool. 

Sheet  E  shows  samples  E-1  and  E-2,  made  by  different  manufac- 
turers, but  sold  by  the  same  selling  agent.  E-1  which  contains 
shoddy  is  sold  at  60  cents  per  yard  below  E-2.  In  the  same  way,  E-3 
is  made  of  new  wool,  and  E-4  contains  a  percentage  of  mill  waste 
which  would  be  marked  shoddy.  E-4  is  sold  about  40  cents  per  yard 
below  E-3  and  we  believe  will  give  practically  the  same  service. 
The  manufacturers  of  E-1  and  E-4  are  not  deceiving  the  public— 
they  are  giving  good,  serviceable  merchandise  at  a  low  price 

Sheet  F  shows  two  samples  of  kerseys.  Kersey  is  a  trade  name 
for  a  staple  overcoating  fabric  that  has  been  made  for  many,  many 
years.  Sometimes  it  is  not  worn  as  much  as  at  other  times  on  account 
of  fashion,  but  it  is  a  standard  fabric  just  the  same  as  a  cotton 

duck. 

Sheet  F  shows  two  samples  of  kerseys  which  are  used  for  men  s 
overcoats  and  both  of  which  have  been  on  the  market  for  over  20 


^» 


19 


years,  and  have  proven  reliable  and  serviceable  fabrics.  F-1  is  of 
new  wool  and  sells  at  more  than  twice  the  price  of  J^'-2,  which 
contains  shoddy.  No  fabric  like  F-2  can  keep  its  place  on  the  mar- 
ket year  after  year  without  proving  its  value,  and  it  is  our  belief  that 
should  the  consumer  see  an  overcoat  made  from  this  material  labeled 
part  shoddy,  he  would  not  believe  that  it  was  made  from  the  same 
cloth  as  the  overcoat  he  had  bought  in  previous  years;  would  be 
deceived  as  to  its  value  and  might  easily  buy  a  garment  marked 
virgin  wool  which  would  be  offered  at  the  same  price,  or  higher 
price,  and  might  be  distinctly  inferior  in  value. 

The  samples  shown  are  collected  from  fabrics  now  in  the  market. 
Every  one  of  them  is  made  by  mills  well  known  to  the  trade,  and 
these  samples  could  be  multiplied  ad  lib.,  but  we  believe  that  they 
are  sufficient  to  convince  you  of  the  impossibility  of  trying  to  con- 
vey any  idea  of  value  or  wearing  qualities  by  simply  stating  the 
percentages  of  raw  materials,  arbitrarily  divided  into  two  classes, 
one  of  which  would  be  judged  by  the  consumer  as  good  and  the 

other  as  bad. 

"Truth  in  fabric"  means  much  more  than  a  statement  or  raw- 
material  content,  and  to  set  up  standards  according  to  the  provisions 
of  the  proposed   bill   is   entirely  contrary  to   a  true  grading  of 

fabric  values.  ,  ,,       .      ,  e 

If  such  a  bill -were  enacted  into  law,  it  would  cost  a  large  sum  ot 
money  each  year  to  enforce,  with  no  return  to  the  public  except 
information  which  is  so  small  a  factor  in  determining  value  and 
service  that  it  is  worthless.    (Hearings,  pp.  363-366.) 

Mr.  a.  a.  Whitman,  New  York  City,  of  the  William  Whitman 
Co.,  said:  It  is  perfectly  evident  from  the  comments  which  have 
appeared  in  the  press,  and  particularly  from  the  statements  made 
by  the  chief  advocates  of  the  so-called  truth-in-fabric  law,  that 
th^re  is  a  very  widespread  misunderstanding  of  the  fundamental 
facts  of  cloth  weaving  and  a  surprising  general  ignorance  of  many 
of  the  simplest  details  of  that  trade. 

The  very  word  around  which  so  much  of  the  present  agitation 
centers  is  perhaps  the  best  illustration  of  this.    "Shoddy,"  as  the 
word  is  used  in  popular  language,  is  a  term  of  reproach,  this  defini- 
tion having  been  fastened  upon  it  at  the  time  of  the  Civil  War,  when 
unscrupulous  war  profiteers  palmed  off  upon  the  Government  for 
the  use  of  our  soldiers  cloths  of  very  poor  quality,  poorly  made,  and 
of  low-grade  fibers,  both  of  virgin  wool  and  mill  waste,  which  is  also 
virgin  wool,  and  of  recovered  wool  or  shoddy.    To  the  mill  man, 
however,  shoddv  takes  its  place  as  one  of  the  very  important  raw 
materials  available,  according  to  its  grading  of  fine  or  coarse,  strong 
or  weak,  soft  or  harsh,  and  so  on,  for  working  into  cloth  m  order 
to  produce  some  desired  result  of  finish,  strength,  warmth,  cost,  etc., 
in  iust  the  same  way  that  the  various  grades  of  new  wool  are  used 
to  produce  the  results  for  which  they  are  suitable.    To  the  manufac- 
turer or  merchant  such  statements  as  these  seem  elementary  in  the 
extreme,  but  unless  these  terms  are  clearly  understood  it  is  evident 
that  manufacturers  and  laymen  are  apt  to  discover  that  they  are 
speaking  different  languages,  and  misunderstandings  are  inevitable. 
The  word  "shoddy"  in  the  woolen  trade  has  a  technical  meaning 
and  is  a  technical  expression  and  is  understood  to  mean  nothing  more 
nor  less  than  pure  wool  reworked  from  old  cloth  or  wool  which  has 


20 


21 


been  spun  or  woven.  To  the  lay  mind  it  means  something  unworthy. 
If  you  were  to  ask  almost  anyone  what  they  think  of  when  they  say 
**shoddy"  they  will  say  that  they  think  of  all  sorts  of  unworthy 
goods.  Many  people  think  it  means  cotton.  Many  people  think  that 
it  is  material  that  is  picked  from  the  gutter^  and  all  that  sort  of 
thing.  That  is  distinctly  the  layman's  understanding  of  the  word. 
It  is  just  as  different  technically  as  can  be.  I  would  like  to  read 
section  14: 

That  the  term  "virgin  wooP'  as  used  in  this  act  shall  mean 
wool  that  has  never  previously  been  spun  or  woven  into  cloth; 
the  term  "shoddy"  shall  include  any  material  obtained  from  any 
fabric  or  clippings  of  cloth  of  any  fiber  whatever,  or  secured 
from  rags  or  from  used  apparel  of  any  description,  or  any 
fiber  that  has  been  previously  spun  or  woven  into  cioth,  as 
well  as  wood,  hemp,  jute,  flax,  and  hair  fiber  not  properly 
classed  as  wool,  of  any  description  and  from  whatever  source  ob- 
tained; also  fur,  feathers  of  every  description  and  from  what- 
ever source  obtained. 


AN   ATTEMPT  TO  LEGISLATE  DEFINITION   OF   SHODDY. 

That  means  that  we  are  going  to  legislate  a  definition  for  "shoddy," 
which  will  bring  about  the  meaning  as  used  in  the  vernacular,  a 
term  that  has  no  application  whatsoever  to  the  trade;  a  term  which 
is  unknown  to  the  trade.  It  is  a  definition  that  completely  changes 
the  proper  meaning  of  the  word.  It  is  quite  evident  that  we  have 
been  talking  without  quite  sufficient  reference  to  that  distinction. 
We  have  been  speaking  of  shoddy  here  as  wool.  Now,  if  you  are 
going  to  mark  clothes,  give  the  percentage  of  new  wool,  the  per- 
centage of  cotton,  the  percentage  of  shoddy,  and  the  percentage  of 
silk,  you  have  left  out  altogether  the  component  of  "pure-wool 
shoddy,"  which  has  not  been  marked ;  that  has  not  been  taken  care  of 
at  all. 

The  proposed  bill  undoubtedly  makes  its  appeal  for  support  on 
the  claim  by  its  authors  that  shoddy,  which  they  assume  to  be  in- 
ferior to  new  wool,  is  used  at  all  times  by  manufacturers  of  wool 
textiles  as  a  substitute  for  new  wool,  in  order  to  cheapen  its  cost 
while  enabling  him  to  deceive  his  customer  into  the  belief  that  the 
fabric  is  made  entirely  of  new  wool,  and  so,  fraudulently  obtain  a 
higher  price  for  it  than  the  customer  would  pay  if  he  knew  that  it 
contained  shoddy. 

In  making  this  play  for  popular  support  of  their  bill,  the  Na- 
tional Sheep  and  Wool  Bureau  have  undoubtedly  very  cleverly 
counted  on  the  ignorance  of  the  public,  and  to  strengthen  this  support 
have  not  hesitated  to  still  further  fasten  on  the  public's  mind  the  fal- 
lacy, that,  because  of  its  virginity,  wool  is  necessarily  good  and  cloth 
made  from  it  is  good  and  because  the  fiber  has  been  previously  spun 
or  woven,  the  cloth  in  which  it  is  used  is  necessarily  of  low  qual- 
ity. To  at  once  see  how  false  this  statement  is,  it  is  only  necessary 
to  know  the  barest  facts  about  new  wool.  Certainly  anyone  who 
knows  anything  about  the  subject  knows  that  various  breeds  of 
sheep  yield  wool  varying  in  quality  to  extremes  of  fineness,  strength, 
length  of  staple,  and  so  forth,  and  even  from  individual  sheep,  wool 


^^ 


is  obtained  running  all  the  way  from  the  best  fibers,  taken  from 
the  sides  and  shoulders,  to  the  poorer  qualities  from  belly,  throat, 
and  head,  and  even  the  short  coarse  product  of  the  legs  and  the 
knotted  and  dung-filled  tags,  known  as  locks.  All  these  qualities  are 
virgin  wool  under  the  Capper  bill;  and  in  addition  to  these  is  the 
so-called  "pulled"  wool,  taken  from  the  skin  of  dead  sheep,  which 
is  frequently  so  weak  as  to  be  of  very  little  serviceability.  In  fact, 
every  kind  of  wool  waste,  even  the  sweepings  from  the  factory 
floor,  are  classed  as  virgin  wool,  so  long  as  they  have  not  actually 
been  spun  into  yarn  or  woven  into  cloth.  Every  grade  of  wool, 
however,  retains  its  original  characteristics  of  qualities  when  it  ia 
spun  and  woven  into  cloth. 

The  greatest  skill  and  ingenuity  have  been  brought  to  the  problepa 
of  recovering  these  fibers  from  the  woven  and  knitted  fabrics,  and  in 
spite  of  the  fact  that  they  are  broken  into  short  lengths  and,  if  the 
cloth  has  been  subjected  to  wear,  have  lost  some  of  their  strength, 
they  are  still  wool  and  have  the  same  characteristic  of  fineness  that 
they  originally  had.  This  reclaimed  fiber  is  the  shoddy  of  the 
woolen  trade.  .  .  . 

GOOD    CONSTRUCTION    DEPENDS    UPON    SPINNING    AND    WEAVING. 

Reference  has  repeatedly  been  made  in  the  discussion  of  these  bills 
to  the  necessity  of  considering  the  construction  of  the  cloth  as  an  even 
more  important  element  in  quality  than  the  fiber  used.    The  word 
"construction"  is  another  one  of  those  terms  glibly  used  by  manu- 
facturers and  merchants,  but  apt  to  be  entirely  misunderstood  by 
the  layman.    It  refers  to  the  way  the  yarn  is  spun  and  to  the  way 
it  is  used  in  weaving  the  cloth.    If  the  wool  is  twisted  loosely  the 
fibers  are  not  bound  firmly  together,  and  while  the  yarn  in  that  ease 
is  soft  and  suitable  for  certain  purposes,  it  has  not  a  great  deal  of 
strength.    If  you  will  unravel  a  thread  of  warp  or  filling  from  any 
piece  of  wool"  cloth  you  will  readily  prove  this  by  twisting  it  tightly 
or  untwisting  it  and  testing  its  strength.    You  will  also  notice  as  you 
untwist  it  between  your  fingers  that  it  is  made  up  of  one,  two, 
three,  or  even  more  strands,  each  twisted  to  a  certain  tightness  to 
produce  just  the  result  desired  in  the  finished  cloth.    In  weaving 
these  threads  together  the  greatest  skill  is  required  to  achieve  just 
the   effect   desired   in   the   finished   material.    A   large   number   of 
strands  to  the  inch  each  way  will  produce  one  effect,  while  fewer 
strands  to  the  inch  will  produce  another.    A  large  range  of  results 
of  strength,  warmth,  appearance,  durability,  etc.,  may  thus  be  ob- 
tained by  the  use  of  the  very  same  fiber  to  start  with,  and  it  is 
evident  that  by  naming  that  particular  kind  or  grade  of  fiber  it 
would  be  impossible  to  tell  what  kind  of  cloth  would  be  produced. 
The  Government  Army  specifications  for  material  for  soldiers'  uni- 
forms went  into  elaborate  detail  as  to  the  quality  of  wool,  twist  and 
ply  of  the  yarn,  construction  of  the  c^oth,  etc.,  seeking  to  give  each 
manufacturer  the  same  receipt  for  the  cloth  required,  but,  even  so, 
the  production  of  some  mills  was  far  better  than  others,  and  some 
manufacturers  had  their  deliveries  refused  altogether.    What  guide 
would  the  manufacturers  have  had  if  these  specifications  had  merely 
stated  the  amount  or  percentage  of  new  wool  or  shoddy  to  be  used? 
Absolutely  none.  .  .  . 


Vf 


iTT 


22 


23 


INTENTION  IS   TO  CREATE  PREJUDICE  AGAINST  SHODDY. 

The  advocates  of  this  legislation  constantly  refer  to  cloth  made  of 
old  dirty  rags  reworked  often  as  many  as  eight  times.  Nothing 
can  show  more  clearly  the  intention  to  create  a  prejudice  against  this 
useful  material.  The  recovered  wool  is  graded  in  the  most  exacting 
way,  just  as  new  wool  is,  and  is  bought  by  the  manufacturer  with 
careful  discrimination  as  to  the  quality  and  grade  which  will  produce 
the  particular  result  he  desires.  In  the  Daily  Mill  Stock  Reporter 
may  be  found  every  day  quotations  for  from  thirty  to  forty  grades 
and  qualities  of  reworked  wool.  .  .  . 

If  it  is  possible  to  recover  the  fiber  as  often  as  eight  times,  it  is 
most  unlikely  that  it  could  be  spun  at  all,  and  it  could  probably  be 
used  only  for  felt  packing,  linings  for  cheap  rubber  boots,  weather 
strips,  and  similar  products.  .  .  . 

If  the  Capper  bill  is  enacted  and  the  unwarranted  stigma  is 
placed  on  shoddy,  the  purchaser  will,  by  his  ignorant  prejudice,  be 
led  to  pay  a  higher  price  for  cloth  not  so  good,  or  to  choose  a  cloth 
of  less  worth  for  the  same  price.  It  is  no  argument  to  say  that  the 
consumer  will  become  educated  to  the  value  of  shoddy  and  will 
learn  to  select  it  with  proper  regard  for  its  value.  In  spite  of  the 
widespread  knowledge  we  have  today  as  to  the  merits  of  oleomar- 
garine, it  is  doubtful  whether  a  rush  of  guests  could  be  secured  by  a 
hotel  advertising  that  oleomargarine  is  used  in  its  kitchen.  It  would 
probably  not  prove  good  advertising  for  a  restaurant  to  announce 
that  it  servps  only  beet  Fugar  to  its  ])atrons.  even  though  they 
may  know  that  sugar  from  the  beet  and  sugar  from  the  cane  are 
identical  in  every  respect. 

There  is  one  phase  of  the  carrying  out  of  this  law  that  seems  to 
us  to  present  very  great  difficulties,  and  that  is  the  enforcement  of 
the  proper  stamping  of  foreign  goods.  While  it  is  a  very  simple 
matter  to  determine  the  percentage  of  cotton  or  silk  in  a  given 
fabric,  it  is  not  possible  to  determine  by  analysis  or  otherwise  the 
presence  of  shoddy.  As  there  can  be  no  way  of  inspecting  the 
processes  used  in  the  production  of  these  foreign  goods,  there  is  a 
possibility  of  the  actual  contents  of  the  fabrics  differing  very  ma 
terially  from  the  marking  attached,  and  even  in  a  case  where  ob- 
viously the  goods  are  not  as  marked,  still  the  deception  could  not 
be  proven.    (Hearings,  pp.  245-254.) 


SIX    HUNDRED    AND    FORTY    DIFFERENT    KINDS    OF    WOOL. 

;Mr.  Charles  J.  Webb  (wool  manufacturer  and  wool  merchant  of 
Philadelphia).  When  I  was  down  here  before  this  committee  the 
other  day,  I  made  a  few  statements  about  640  different  kinds  of  wool, 
and  I  said  that  the  question  of  virgin  wool  meant  nothing.  I  have 
brought  a  few  samples  of  wool  with  me  here  to-day,  taken  from 
samples  tliat  are  standard  for  the  United  States  Government. 

Here  is  a  sample  of  wool  that  comes  from  India — virgin  wool, 
known  to  the  trade  as  "Marwar''  (exhibiting  sample). 

Now,  here  is  one  from  Madras  (exhibiting  another  sample  of 
wool).  All  these  wools  were  subject  to  duty  when  we  had  the 
duty  on  wool. 


^-4* 


Here  is  wool  that  comes  from  Turkey.  We  buy  that,  picker  it  up, 
and  put  it  in  the  back  of  goods,  because  it  is  cheaper  than  shoddy. 
That  is  the  wool  which  they  gather  up  from  Bagdad  and  different 
sections  of  the  country,  put  it  in  a  mattress,  and  lie  on  it  for  years, 
and  then  when  they  rip  the  mattress  up  they  take  it  out  and  sell  it. 

Now,  here  is  another  sample  of  wool  (exhibiting  sample).  This 
comes  from  Russia — Calmuc  wool. 

I  only  want  to  say  to  you  that  those  are  virgin  wools,  if  you 
please.  In  other  words,  I  told  you  the  other  day  that  the  words 
"virgin  wool"  mean  little  to  the  man  who  does  know  and  does 
understand  his  business,  but  to  the  man  that  does  not  know,  wool  is 
wool.  But  when  you  talk  to  the  man  who  knows  this  business  you. 
must  tell  him  all  about  this  wool.  You  must  tell  him  what  it  spins; 
you  must  tell  him  what  are  the  shrinking  qualities  of  this  wool,  and 
what  are  the  classifications.  Wool  is  just  like  an  individual.  Every 
fleece  is  different. 

I  brought  you  these  samples  of  wool,  gentlemen,  so  that  you  can 
see  what  virgin  wool  is.  I  can  make  you  a  piece  of  goods  out  of 
these  samples  very  handily.  And  the  goods  made  out  of  this  wool 
will  be  stamped  "virgin  w^ool."  But  I  can  also  make  you  a  piece 
of  goods  out  of  good  by-products,  and  you  could  not  tell  that 
that*  piece  of  goods  was  not  virgin  wool.  But  the  minute  you  would 
look  at  a  piece  of  goods  made  from  these  samples  of  wool  (exhibit- 
ing samples  of  East  Indian  and  Turkish  wool)  you  would  know 
something  was  wrong.  And  the  whole  situation  resolves  itself  into 
this,  and  this  is  the  error  that  arises  from  the  whole  situation,  and 
the  fact  is  that  the  average  man  who  is  not  in  the  business  thinks 
that  wool  is  wool,  and  does  not  know  that  there  are  640  different 
types  of  wool.    There  is  the  whole  stor3\ 

Now,  there  are  some  wastes  that  are  better  than  wool  for  some 
purposes.  For  making  certain  kinds  of  cloths  broken  tops  are  better 
than  wool,  because  it  has  no  nubs  in  it,  no  second  growth,  no  second 
clip. 

Now,  it  is  all  in  the  manufacture  of  woolen  goods.  One  man  will 
take  the  same  material  that  another  man  would  take  in  manufactur- 
ing cloth  and  make  a  piece  of  goods  that  you  and  I  would  not  buy. 
And  then  another  man  will  take  the  same  material  and  put  the 
picks  in  it  and  the  ends  in  it,  and  in  the  finishing  of  the  goods  he 
will  go  through  a  great  many  processes  and  it  is  the  finish  that  makes 
the  goods,  as  the  gentleman  described  here. 

Now,  I  have  spoken  to  some  of  my  wool  growing  friends — I  don't 
know  whether  there  are  any  of  them  here  to-day  or  not — and  I  have 
said  to  them  that  my  interest  is  their  interest,  and  their  interest  is 
my  interest.  I  have  quite  as  much  money  locked  up  in  wool-growing 
as  they  have,  and  maybe  I  have  more,  because  I  think  I  am  holding 
the  bag  to-day;  and  what  is  the  use  of  spending  your  time  and 
everybody's  time  passing  a  law  concerning  which  they  would  say, 
if  they  really  knew  all  the  facts  in  the  case,  "Don't  pass  it?"  I  am 
so  confident  of  that  that  I  am  almost  willing  to  try  to  convince 
them,  if  they  will  give  me  twenty  minutes  to  do  so.  (Hearings, 
pp.  366-370.) 


V*-f 


4       I    H. 


i 


CARDINAL  OBJECTIONS  TO  COMPULSORY 
BRANDING    OF  WOOL. 


'^'■^.•t  ^ 


1.  Branding  of  wool  fabrics  to  show  only  their  fiber  content 
cannot  have  any  relation  to  the  durability,  warmth,  or  other  desir- 
able properties  of  the  fabric  and  hence  at  best  is  useless,  and  at 
worst  is  misleading. 

2.  The  distinction  between  wool  fibers  "previously  spun  or 
woven"  and  those  spun  or  woven  the  first  time  cannot  be  established 
by  physical  or  chemical  test.  It  can  only  be  made  certain  by  knowl- 
edge of  the  fibers'  actual  history — a  difficult  matter  to  make  sure  of 
without  costly  systems  of  oaths,  inspections,  and  bondings. 

3.  The  knowledge  of  fiber  content  provided  for  by  the  pro- 
posed law  would  not  only  be  useless  or  misleading  to  the  consumer, 
if  accurately  transmitted  to  him,  but  the  process  of  making  sure 
that  it  was  accurately  transmitted  to  the  consumer  opens  up  chances 
for  fraud  not  offered  by  the  normal  channels  of  commerce.  Claims 
of  merit  implied  in  false  declarations  under  the  law  would  be  ex- 
tremely difficult  to  refute. 

4.  Branding  to  show  only  fiber  content  would  be  bad  enough 
if  it  were  merely  made  optional  under  a  Federal  registration  and 
branding  system.  To  make  it  compulsory  puts  a  needless  and 
costly  handicap  on  all  honestly  conducted  wool  fabric  business,  and 
in  addition  to  offering  no  hindrance  to  dishonest  persons,  opens  up 
to  them  new  chances  for  deception.  It  is  not  unlike  a  Federal 
statute  requiring  all  men  to  wear  a  button  telling  how  many  times 
they  have  been  to  Boston.  If  honestly  lived  up  to,  it  is  meaningless, 
and  whatever  advantages  may  be  gained  from  compliance  are  open  . 
to  the  just  and  the  unjust  alike,  regardless  of  the  facts. 

5.  Compulsory  branding  of  the  sort  contemplated,  if  honestly 
and  effectively  done,  would  cost  something.  That  cost  would  be 
justified  only  if  the  return  to  the  public  were  valuable  and  certain. 
It  could  be  neither  of  these. 

6.  The  wool  growers  who  expect  that  this  project  will  raise  wool 
prices  are  deceived,  first,  as  to  the  amount  of  reworked  stock  used, 
second,  as  to  its  use  as  a  substitute  for  wool  instead  of  as  a  supple- 
ment to  the  wool  supply  as  is  actually  the  case,  and  third,  as  to  the 
facts  concerning  the  relative  prices  of  new  and  reworked  stock 
and  the  fabrics  made  from  them.  These  facts  have  been  brought 
out  repeatedly. 

7.  The  project  does  not  provide  for  "Truth  in  Fabrics"  but  for 
the  compulsory  branding  of  incomplete  assertions,  the  accuracy  of 
which  is  incapable  of  proof  or  refutation  and  the  implications  of 
which  are  deceptive. 


i  f 


Ji\)u 


i^99A 


/n;^  oHrrr 


i^EH 


a 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERS 


TY  LIBRARIES 


0041422660 


w 


^ 


V   \ 


.•v:MuJ;rf'i, 


^^■1 

^^^^^^^^^^HETftiiTtiT^  >>*■ 

m 

^B  " 

:     It 


^K 

^^^Hi' 

B>:i. 


END  OF 

TITLE 


